Archives for category: Uncategorized

Spot on! Can’t be said often enough.

Watts Up With That?

Guest Post By Willis Eschenbach

Bizarrely, and unlike almost every other industrialized country, the US has fuel efficiency standards for cars. Each corporation (Ford, Chevy, etc.) has to meet certain fuel economy standards called the CAFE standards.

Let me start by saying that I think that this is governmental over-reach. In virtually every other part of life we let the market decide the required efficiency. We don’t have required efficiencies for gas-fired power plants. More efficient plants occur as a result of the market. We also don’t have required efficiencies for cell phones. If they burn through the batteries, they don’t sell. The market has always handled efficiency quite … well … efficiently.

So I object to ANY automotive fuel standards as both totally un-necessary, and worse, market distorting.

Here’s one important way it distorts the market. “Fuel Economy” is measured in a very curious way. Work efficiencies are usually…

View original post 856 more words

Again, what is there to show for $10-trillion over the last 8 years? Not to mention those trillions actually paid with taxpayer dollars!

Skating Under The Ice

On the outskirts of Las Vegas there’s a mid-range trailer park that grandiosely styles itself the “Orchard Mobile Home Estates”. There is no orchard in sight. It’s not the bottom of the pond for trailer parks, but it’s a ways from the top. A 41-year-old waitress lives there in a double-wide trailer, with her two kids who are eleven and nine. She’s single, but she wasn’t always single. She was married to a lawyer when she had the kids. In fact, it was her waitressing job that put him through law school. They had a happy family until he said he wanted “space to find himself”.

Apparently, said “space” involved a shocking proportion of the law firm’s escrow account as well as a twenty year old legal assistant whose “assistance” seems to have been mostly horizontal. In any case, she hasn’t heard from the bum and his slut for seven years. She…

View original post 1,226 more words

Renewables = starvation, enslavement, and death to millions.

Watts Up With That?

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

The Telegraph, a major UK Newspaper, has investigated a scandalous waste of British taxpayer’s money on expensive renewables projects which deliver very little return for the money invested.

Hundreds of millions of British aid ‘wasted’ on overseas climate change projects

Robert Mendick, chief reporter
12 MARCH 2017 • 10:00PM

Serious questions are raised today over hundreds of millions of pounds of British taxpayers’ money being ‘wasted’ on climate change projects such as an Ethiopian wind farm and Kenyan solar power plant.

A Telegraph investigation shows little benefit so far from a £2 billion foreign aid programme to tackle climate change that was established eight years ago.

One scheme, costing £260m of UK taxpayers’ money, has produced only enough renewable electricity to power the equivalent of just 100 British households – about the size of a typical street.

Projects including solar parks in Kenya and Mali…

View original post 409 more words

If windmills aren’t stopped soon enough, several species of bats may be the first extinctions due to man’s fears of global warming.

Bats are capable enough to miss the blades, but as they dart past, the extreme air pressure changes near the blades blast the bats lungs. They shortly thereafter succumb by drowning as their lungs fill will fluid.

For the record, I’ll take people over bats any day, but windmills are bad for us all.



The rampant slaughter of birds and bats by wind turbines is just another inconvenient truth for the wind cult. In this peer reviewed scientific paper, the scale of the destruction was spelled out loud and clear: wind turbines are now the leading cause of bat mortality.

Multiple mortality events in bats: a global review
Mammal Review
Thomas J. O’Shea, Paul M. Cryan, David T.S. Hayman, Raina K. Plowright, Daniel G. Streicker
18 January 2016



  1. Despite conservation concerns for many species of bats, factors causing mortality in bats have not been reviewed since 1970. Here, we review and qualitatively describe trends in the occurrence and apparent causes of multiple mortality events (MMEs) in bats around the world.
  2. We compiled a database of MMEs, defined as cases in which ≥ 10 dead bats were counted or estimated at a specific location within a maximum timescale of a year, and more typically within a…

View original post 541 more words

Separating yourself from cognitive dissonance is hard. It requires acknowledging something higher than yourself, something even higher than your own ideals.

Watts Up With That?

In case you missed it, our friends at had a fantastic column (which won’t load now due to internal server error, but is cached by Google, so I repeat it here) by Dr. Danusha V. Goska in 2014. She was a life-long leftist and wrote that she has abandoned that philosophy. Here, she gives her top ten reasons. It parallels many if the trials and tribulations climate skeptics suffer at the hands of [climate activists]. I highly recommend it, and I recommend sending it to every activist who calls you a “climate denier”. There may be hope yet for those who value spewing hate over rational debate. – Anthony

danusha-goshka Dr. Danusha V. Goska

by Dr. Danusha V. Goska

How far left was I? So far left my beloved uncle was a card-carrying member of the Communist Party in a Communist country. When I returned to his Slovak village…

View original post 4,748 more words

Science is in dire straights, but truth will out. Keep trying.

Watts Up With That?

Edward Ferrara writes:

If your Facebook feed is anything like mine, you may have recently heard about how Bill Nye–the Science Guy himself–“slammed” Tucker Carlson on the latter’s evening show on Fox. THIS. (If you live somewhere else you may have been treated to an equally smug reaction from people claiming that Carlson “won.”)

However you feel about it, the timing, coupled with Nye’s reliance on scientific consensus as a proxy for objective correctness, is somewhat serendipitous. Mounting evidence that the results of scientific studies are often not replicable has caused Nature, one of the most prolific scientific journals, to very publicly tighten its standards for submissions as of its latest issue.

In May of 2016, a survey by Nature revealed that over two thirds of researchers surveyed had tried and failed to reproduce the results of another scientist’s study. Over half of them had been unable to reproduce their…

View original post 388 more words

Skating Under The Ice

As usual, watching the Tweeter-In-Chief is quite hilarious. His latest blast from last night has well and truly set the media’s hair on fire.


Now, you have to understand something about the President’s tweets, famously expressed by Salena Zito: The media took Trump literally but not seriously, and his supporters took him seriously but not literally. In this case, when he says “Obama” he means “the Obama Administration”, he’s used that shorthand lots of times.

This lack of understanding of Trump TweetSpeak led Comrade Obama to issue an appropriately lawyerly denial, since he is a lawyer. Well, actually, he had his spokesdude issue a denial, he’s far too busy with really really important stuff to actually talk to people himself. Apparently Comrade Obama believes that all people are equal, but some are more equal than others. In any case, from the NY Post:

A spokesman for former President Barack Obama…

View original post 1,310 more words

We, my wife and I, had a run-in with the police today, but it was the good kind.

George passed this weekend, and the home-health services nurse found him Monday morning. She called 911, and then us.

It took us a bit to get over there, and two policemen were patiently, politely, waiting for us. They explained and encouraged us to not go check personally.

A statement over the phone had Mary seeming slightly defensive on our way over, but talking things out helps.

For Mary, it was a difficult situation, she has been rather stressed, George’s passing adding that much more, and these two police officers both stayed patient, considerate, and helpful. We didn’t give them any reason to be otherwise, but Mary isn’t at her best under pressure. (Of course, that statement applies to most of us.) In a few short years, Ethan passed, Mary helped Jeanette take care of it all. Then Jeanette passed. Mary took care of that, with some help from George, and then Mary’s father passed. Thankfully, the family shared responsibilities quite well. So, the burden was not on Mary, but she still felt the pressure. Then Mary’s mother passed. Again, the family pulled together, but it still wore on Mary. Now, while we were out of town for Charlotte’s funeral, George passed, and there just is no one but Mary. So, you can see the pressure had been building. Mary has handled it graciously, and the professionalism and graciousness of the police officers helped in the best way.

I really do appreciate our law enforcement officers. We really need to help them when appropriate, and we need to appreciate them all the time.

My point here is that the police probably were a bit unsure of Mary, yet, professionalism prevailed. I’m having a heck of a time saying what I mean here. Mary didn’t act inappropriately in any way, but I’ve seen similar situations get sidewise, similar situations with different, various people in different (but similarly stressful) circumstances, and little things can be taken wrong, amplified, and less than ideal interactions follow.

The fact is, the death of anyone close affects us. It throws us off. It messes up our innerworkings. We tend to be a little less rational, a little more variable, a little more offensive, and a little more sensitive to offense. Everyone is different, except that we are all affected when someone close dies. (It makes us reassess and reset proportion and perspective. The unbalance takes time to rebalance.)

We expect a lot of our police. We expect too much, really. We have too many laws. We try to enforce those too many laws in different ways in different circumstances. It isn’t fair to them. We need our officers to be able to handle things like happened here. These two officers really did their jobs, handling a hard situation practically perfectly.

I suppose there are many ways it could have all been handled in the absence of the police with eventual adequate outcome. What needed done would have got done because it had to be done. Yet, our police knew the basics and professionally, patiently, and thoroughly helped us get it taken care of.

So, too many words. It wasn’t much of a big deal, but too many bad things have centered around law enforcement in general lately. I just wanted to make sure I recorded a good thing.

Our law enforcement personnel in nearly all regards are better than average where it counts most, in honor, integrity, and professionalism.

Thank you officers!

I sure appreciated our police today.


For reference.

Watts Up With That?

Guest essay by Charles G. Battig, M.D.

climate-deus1 Image of “Mega Reed’s computer” from the “Deus Ex: Human Revolution” computer game with some enhancements (3D computer room by Anarchixel) edited in by Anthony Watts

Some say that “God” might reside in a computer…the Deus ex Machina, literally means “god from the machine”.  Amongst those individuals are those divining climate with climate computers in which are embedded general circulation models. This has generated a belief system…belief that all variables which drive global climate at all time scales have been identified, quantified as to individual contribution and interactions, and that chaotic variability is foreseeable. At the current state of scientific knowledge, such belief is intellectual hubris masquerading as achieved scientific endeavor.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology pioneering meteorologist and mathematician Professor Edward Lorenz doubted this ability in the 1960’s.  The serendipitous discoverer of chaos theory postulated “is there such a thing as a climate?”…

View original post 463 more words

Oxygen is toxic in high concentrations. Water is lethal too often. Our world is radioactive. We are built for a fair bit of it.

Many, many people have had much higher short and long term exposure and were none the worse. Marie Curie suffered due to overexposure to radiation, but she took more dose than probably anyone in all of history. She worked with radiation almost continuously for almost four decades. Every day so many cases of so many diseases that have nothing to do with radiation.

Death is a part of life. Fear does not have to be. Live life to the fullest without fear of what you cannot control. Nuclear really isn’t something to fear. We do far more dangerous things routinely, voluntarily, even just for fun.

Watts Up With That?

Guest essay by Roger Graves

In a recent post I discussed the exaggerated fears our society seems to have about nuclear power. One of the primary objections to nuclear power is the belief that all ionizing radiation, at whatever level of intensity, is harmful and carries a risk of cancer. This essay is concerned with the effects that ionizing radiation has on human beings, and in particular whether low doses are harmful.

First, let me say that, although I am a physicist, I am not a medical physicist and definitely not a cancer specialist. Many other, far more knowledgeable people have written on this subject, so what I write here should be considered largely as a summary of other people’s work.


There are two schools of thought on the effect of ionizing radiation on human beings. The first holds that all ionizing radiation is harmful, and that any exposure…

View original post 3,336 more words

Worth sharing. Worth documenting. Bills Nye the fake guy.

Big Picture News, Informed Analysis

I’m aware of two occasions in which the Science Guy has misled the public. But the New York Times says he’s saving us from misinformation.


Eleven days ago, the New York Times ran a story headlined: “In an Age of Alternative Facts, Bill Nye’s New Show Brings Real Ones.” How charmingly naive. If you’re in a rush, and want to know about Nye’s misleading video as well as his misleading article in the very same New York Times, scroll down to the navy-coloured text below. But the longer story is entertaining.

The notion that some people are a source of real facts, while others are a source of fake/alternative facts, is currently being pushed hard by the mainstream media. Journalists have decided that a major part of their job is to tell the rest of us who to believe.

Their message isn’t that skepticism is always necessary, and that even smart people are often wrong. Rather, this is an attempt…

View original post 999 more words

Willis makes good points. The difficulty is in balancing these points against freedom and liberty in general.

I’m for liberty, but it cannot be blindly so, or too many will be taken advantage of. Still, we need less government, less regulation, less law. We can’t do with less law enforcement. We are a nation of laws. We must enforce our laws. Accordingly, let’s reduce our laws so our law enforcement has a more reasonable task. (Willis’s example from his youth is an excellent example of laws we need to pare back.)

Again, the key is balance, and though Willis is smarter than you and me, he still doesn’t have a straightforward and effective plan. Even if he were to come up with one, we have no hope of achieving full consensus. That is life as we know it.

Mostly, we need to all take what action we can to do good and promote what we hold as the highest ideals. We need to work for the good, not against the bad. The bad tends to shrivel and fade when the good is fully supported and succeeding.

We are all in this together. No matter our skin tone, no matter our nationality, even the bad with the good, we are all in this together. Keep that in mind, and work for the good best you know how.

Skating Under The Ice

I keep hearing that the reason that we need workers from Mexico and Central America to pick our crops is because working in the fields is “work that Americans won’t do”. I say that that sentence is chopped off in midstream.

How do I know that’s only half a sentence? Because that was the first work I ever did. I worked summers all through high school. My first job was in 1961, when I was 13 years old and weighed about 120 pounds (55 kg) soaking wet.

I just looked it up, and at the time, the Federal minimum wage in current dollars was $8.12 per hour. The California minimum wage was $9.34 per hour. Interesting, not a lot different from today.

In current money, on my first job I made two dollars and forty-four cents an hour. I worked ten hours a day, bucking hay in the fields. It was totally illegal for me to be doing the work…

View original post 1,952 more words

Hey fellow Oklahomans,

We all know about the selenite crystals in our salt flats. Here is an informative article centering around the ginormous ones down in Mexico.

Cognitive dissonance is an affliction we like to hold on to until it hurts too much. It’s easy to let go of if we are determined to uphold truth, no matter how it presents.

Naturalis Historia

Nine hundred feet below a Mexican desert hundreds of giant white crystals, some more than 90 feet long and 13 feet wide, fill a hot (137 F) and humid cavern.  Pictures of people exploring this crystal palace look as if Rick Moranis had shrunk them down to the size of an ant and then put them into a the center of a geode.


These massive selenite (calcium sulfate) crystals are unusual not just for the colossal size but also for their purity of composition.  These features alone suggest an ancient origin of these crystals.   This cavern is just a small part of a large mining operation beneath Naica, Mexico.   Mining operations in 1985 drained the hot salty water from this chamber stopping crystal formation at that point.  Now dozens of scientific studies – see references – have been performed on the crystals to estimate their age and how they grew…

View original post 1,894 more words

Do we really need to outlaw plagiarism?

Does copying someone else’s work without attribution pose a threat so grave that we must send armed forces to stamp it out?

I think not.

It truly is important to think through every law. We must stop and say, if my grandmother was engaging in this prohibited action, do I think it worth pointing a loaded gun at her to try to make her stop, and is it justifiable to pull the trigger if she refuses compliance?

If we review our laws that way, I think we will repeal most of them.

First, an aside, am I justified in calling all law to be so scrutinized? I don’t think justification is involved. That is what we do. If we pass a law, we are threatening to send aggressive, armed forces, law-enforcement, to coerce compliance. When we write a parking citation, we are counting on most people to simply comply and pay the fine, rather than challenge the authority, because when the sheriff shows up, we don’t want to risk the fact that the deputy will probably eventually pull the trigger and put us down permanently because the law backs the enforcer.

It isn’t an academic question. It is what we do. We enforce all law, tax law, civil law, criminal law, and environmental regulations, by putting a loaded gun to the head of violators, held by enforcers willing to pull the trigger if ultimately needed to enforce compliance. It is what we do. We have institutionalized coercive violence and prettied it up such that we can pretend it is a tame beast, but it is not. It, all of it, the institution and the violence and all that pertains, is a fearsome, destructive monster, always ready to pounce whenever unleashed, even in the smallest of instances.

Again, we pretend it is not so harsh because we count on individuals to comply before violence ensues, before the guns come out, but ultimately, if the individual (or the group, or mob) determines to be noncompliant, the bullets will eventually fly. Coercion is evil, but most of the time it is easy to pretend otherwise.

Back to plagiarism: How do we know what anyone wrote before Anne?

Mostly, we know who wrote what, and who originated ideas, because of the honor system. For the most part, replicators of ideas or writings wanted to attribute the origin because of credibility. It was more for personal honor and reputation than for honor of the originator. There was limited commercial value before the printing press. And, since ideas mattered, the surest way to have your ideas gain purchase was to attribute properly, especially to persons who already held the respect of their peers, especially if fame extended to the masses. Attributing your idea to Einstein just might get it accepted even if Einstein never thought of it; just provide a plausible story to make the connection.

It seems at least partly that copyright originated to protect the publishers, not the authors. Monopolies were extended, and that can never be counted good, even if at times it might be argued necessary.

It seems copyrights and intellectual property rights are primarily intended to protect those earning profits from it, not the originator who is the actual rights holder. Copyright and intellectual right, together, are simple; if I wrote it, if I originated the idea, I hold property right to it. I really see a huge disconnect between that simple idea and implementation and enforcement. Freedom and free-market interplay will work better. We need simple protection of the property right, not the profiteering rights.

I think those calling for liberty in intellectual property are on the right track. We really don’t need the guys with the guns to enforce honorable action in ideas, speech, writing, free thought, and all the related spread and influence of information.

We can let freedom ring.

Let’s work for freedom.

Sure, TANSTAFL, but it sure seems everything works out better the more freedom, and everything works out worse for more regulation and centralization.



%d bloggers like this: