Wednesday, July 29, 2015

Hypothetical situation

Just fer grins.

Let's say you believe in something.  But this in conflict with your society.  Would you give that up in order to save yourself?

Putting it another way:  Let's say you saw something.  You tell everyone you know, but they don't believe you.  In fact, not only do they not believe you, they threaten your life if you keep saying it.  Would you stop in order to save yourself?

I know what this may sound like, and if you guess, you are probably right.

I don't wanna specify what it is that you believe or saw.  Let it be anything.  Oh what the heck, it could be global warming.  Maybe something convinced you so thoroughly that it was really a major threat, but the society said "no dice, and shut the bleep up, or you're dead".  Do you shut up, or do you keep talking it up?

What does this exercise do?  Like any exercise, only what you put into it.  If you can really imagine a scenario in which to believe or to say a thing might get you killed, do you let that dictate what you say or believe?

That may be an exercise you oughta practice, because you may need it someday.

Iran Nuke Deal

Well, I started to listen to the analysis of the deal, but couldn't take it for very long.

On the core of the matter, the impression I got is that they only delayed the Iranians a bit at best.  They could have done the same thing by keeping the sanctions.  In other words, the deal was more  important than what they actually accomplished with a deal.  Got that?  They just want to say that they got a deal, never mind that the deal isn't any good.  In exchange, the Iranians get a lot of advantages that they ordinarily wouldn't have gotten without a deal.  Let's put it another way:  Obama gave away the store for a song.

I can't believe people actually would support this even as a matter of party loyalty, but I suspect that this is what is going to happen.  They have already set it up that way in Congress.  The GOP only wants the issue to dangle before their voters and maybe some people on the other side.  Obama gets to say he has accomplished something of value and they Democrats can try to run on that.  Anybody who disagrees is just a Neaderthal or party hack.

At some point, the fact that you are destroying the country ought to have some restraint upon you, but people don't seem to care.  It's their tribe that counts.


I read a friendly analysis of the deal ( in the Atlantic, I think ).  What they like to say is "what do you propose?"  Well, that was decided years ago when Obama was first elected.  Obama's election was a repudiation of Bush, and that is what has brought us to this point.

If Bush's policies had been continued, it may have been possible to overturn the regime in Iran.  It may have been possible to do this without war.

In any case, if Iran would not negotiate, we could have continued to tighten the sanctions.  If necessary, we could have done some military strikes to take out their capabilities and delay it for awhile.  In the meantime, we also could have developed missile defense.

The left is absolutely assured that the only way to do things is their way.  But what happens when it doesn't work?

Trump and Hannity

Nothing I see yet makes Trump to be the fire breathing monster that they are making him out to be.

If there's anything that worries me a bit is that he seems to think that winning trade deals is going to be good enough to restore prosperity here.  Maybe it does, but I think that trade alone won't do it.

Other countries can protect their interests too.  What then?  War?

You have to innovate your way out of this.   You have to be smarter than your competition.  The trade part will take care of itself.

For instance, fracking made the US more competitive.  This is a foretaste of what we could expect if innovative ways of making energy are ramped up, like molten-salt reactors.  American products could have a cost advantage that it isn't available today.  Besides, China is developing molten-salt reactors.  If America doesn't, there goes a potential advantage right out the window.  Molten-salt reactor technology promises to be cheaper than coal.  Coal is currently the cheapest.

Windmills and solar panels aren't good enough, nor promise to ever be.  To depend on these for the future is folly.

Question: Does Man-made Global Warming Theory Violate Thermodyamics?

That is, is the gas ( carbon dioxide ) going to behave substantially different than what oxygen does?  For that is what the warmists are proposing---that carbon dioxide really behaves differently than an ideal gas.

There are deviations in real gases ( as opposed to ideal gas law ), but these don't matter much at normal temperatures and pressures.  These are the temperatures and pressures that you would encounter in an atmosphere like the Earth's.  The differences in temperature and pressure would have to be much greater than you would ever encounter on Earth.  So, carbon dioxide would have to act pretty much like what it replaces---oxygen.

In other words, in order for global warming theory to be true, carbon dioxide would have to deviate substantially from the ideal gas law.  Since this unlikely, or more accurately, most likely an impossibility, I'm going to guess that it does violate Thermodynamics.  In other words, Man Made Global Warming Theory is bunk.

Couple of items I found on Trump

One of them is that he doesn't believe in man-made global warming.  That's good.

Two is that he has someone in his entourage that has given him a major PR black eye.  That's not good.

The best selling point for Trump is competence and the guy ( Cohen ) doesn't look competent.

Cohen also said something that lends support that Trump may not be a "nice" man.  I'm not so interested in the "nice" part, but whether or not what he says is true.  Cohen flubbed this one, so the other just looks that much worse.  In other words, did Trump get ahead by being an asshole, or by being the best at what he does?  The answer to that question is what is important.

Final point here is this:  where was all this vetting with respect to Obama?  I never seen such a cover up of a candidate's weak points than with that guy.  We're six year into this guy, and they are still doing it.  That's why one may get desperate and nominate a guy like Trump.  The others just aren't tough enough to go against that machine.

Tuesday, July 28, 2015

Angelo Codevilla's Take on Trump

Rush Limbaugh dot com

Won't go into who Codevilla is.  Look it up.

Codevilla isn't sure that Trump's the answer.  Neither am I, but one thing I am sure of, is that he could be if he wanted to be.

Trump is leading in New Hampshire and is second in Iowa.  If he wins both, he is the favorite to win the nomination.  That's the history of the nomination process---who does best in the early ones tend to win.  Unless something happens that changes all that, if he wins both, he's likely to be the nominee.

See the world’s oldest organisms

Llareta of the Atacama Desert

Very interesting plant.  It came to my attention while writing about the man-made global warming claims that are hyped over and over again by the left.  What I was attempting to get at was that water is more important to the Greenhouse Effect than carbon dioxide.  Without the oceans, there would be much less of a Greenhouse Effect on Earth.  The Earth would resemble the Atacama Desert, with extremes in temperature.

This plant is densely packed in order to retain heat during the cold Atacama Desert nights.  It is so dense that a human can stand on top of it and be supported by the densely packed leaves.  The density keeps in the warmth, as you might expect.

I'd be interested in growing this plant on da Ranch if I can get some specimens of it.  I'd like to grow it around the place in order to walk upon it instead of walking upon the dirt.  Why not grass?  Good question.  This stuff can exist in very dry areas, however.  Grass would need more water.

Photo taken by Professor Bikey Bike, May 2002, on the slopes of Nevado Coropuna, Peru.


An idea is to plant the llareta and grow it about 6 inches tall so that I can walk on it.  It will absorb heat, but not radiate it out until night time, thus moderating temperatures.

In addition, it may be possible that this may create a temperature gradient that can be exploited by a windmill.  The breeze will flow around it the same way that it would a small lake.  A windmill can be setup nearby.


One more thing before I let this one go.  Over 30 years ago, I was visiting my sister and her husband at their new apartment.  There was a lake nearby, and the breeze came off the small lake ( or pond ), and that memory has remained with me all this time.  The trouble with windmills is that you cannot depend upon them always because the wind doesn't always blow.  Hence, the idea that I could force the issue and have wind blow when I wanted it to blow.  This may not work the way I envision, but it is a thought.  Just sayin'.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

Once again, the man made global warmists fail, because they are making extraordinary claims, yet they cannot come up with extraordinary evidence in support of their claims.

It is an extraordinary claim to say that man made global warming can take place in spite of the fact that the gas laws show that it cannot come from the creation of carbon dioxide gas alone.  In fact, the warmists don't seem to be making that claim, but make the claim that it is the property of carbon dioxide itself that makes it a threat.

But that too is extraordinary because so little of it is being produced.  Sure, lots of carbon dioxide is being produced when it is in comparison with human scales, but on a global scale such as the case would be for the entire planetary system, the amount being produced by humans is insignificant to the extreme.  Doubling the carbon dioxide concentration seems significant, but really isn't once you consider that the measurements are in parts per million.  Hence, the claim that such a small amount of carbon dioxide in comparison to what already exists, and in comparison with the rest of the atmosphere, is an extraordinary claim.

Where's the evidence to support this claim?  The claims they make are in dispute.  They are far from extraordinary, they are in dispute.  Even here, the dispute has to be ginned up in order to be a dispute at all.  Numbers have to be adjusted in order to provide the warmists with any evidence at all, much less extraordinary evidence that is required for their extraordinary claims.

More or less the point of the global warming propaganda

It is directed at ignorant people who can be easily deceived.

Once again, another common everyday device shows that the assertions made by the warmists are wrong.

Consider a diesel engine.  There is a difference in how a diesel engine works versus the gasoline engine.  A gasoline engine uses spark plugs, while the diesel engine doesn't require one.  Instead of a spark plug, a glow plug is used for cold weather starts.  Other than this, the diesel engine relies solely upon the compression of the air in order provide the heat necessary to combust the diesel fuel.  The following video explains this:

Thus, it is shown that compression of air is what determines heat in a gas in this instance.  Compression just means more air molecules in a given space.

The same is true in a global context.  There is no enclosed structure, as in an engine.  So, when the air is heated, it expands, as in the engine.  The air in the atmosphere will expand and it will cool while it expands.

Hence, there can be no heat retention.  It is only retained by heat transfer from an energy source.  Since that source is the sun, it is constant, so there's nothing that's going to increase the heat in the system unless more gas is generated.  As indicated in a prior post, this doesn't happen during combustion.

It is better to make examples like this to average people because it is easy to understand and makes it harder for the deceivers to fool the majority of people.  Let's face it, not everybody is equal.  Some folks just need to have things explained to them sufficiently, and they will get it.

Further proof of my claim?

Why do fire pistons work?  Same principle in the Gas Law just mentioned in a previous post.  If the compression is 25 to 1, it will bring the temperature up to 800 Farenheit!  Yep, it does make that much difference.