Cargo Cult Science

I remember reading something about this less than a year ago.  It so happens that the Digg news thingy on the bottom of the page had a link to a YouTube video by R.P. Feynman.  This reminded me of the Cargo Cult Science article that I read, so I looked it up.  I don't think this is the same place I read it before, but it looks like the same thing.  I don't know if the two are one and the same person, but the names are very similar.

The gist of the thing is that AGW is not science, but goes through the motions of being science.

Especially so in light of the East Anglia CRC emails scandal, the Michael Mann issues at Penn State, the several instances of bad data/bad claims by the IPCC, and so on. 

I think that is one of the problems we are having these days.  People don't think.  They won't think.  So, in the absence of thinking, it becomes very easy to fool those who won't think.  "You can fool some of the people most of the time, most of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all the people all of the time".  The ones you can fool most of the time won't think any of the time.  The ones you can fool some of the time got lazy and failed to think something through on a particular occasion.  But eventually, the truth will come out.

That is, if there isn't a government or organization that suppresses it first.

The Texas Omen

Paul Krugman decides to come after the Lone Star State on the issue of a budget deficit.  He says Texas' deficit is projected to run as high as 25 billion in the next biennium.  But that number is disputed.  I've seen estimates much lower, say about half that.

Well, there's lie, damn lies, and statistics.  As long as we're playing around with statistics, let's look at this chart:

http://sunshinereview.org/index.php/Texas_state_budget

To plug in the last line which covers this current budget for 2010-2011, note that Texas will spend 182.3, which is 1.6 billion less than the previous biennium.  That will complete the chart.  A little digging revealed that school funding got changed in the 2006 period, which shows up as a big increase in the 2008-2009 budget.  If Texas is having a problem, it is with this big increase in spending.  The numbers just jump out at you, don't they?

But this site says the problem is with MediCaid.  Either way, the problem is with spending.

According to the sunshine review site, revenues have dropped a little, but it doesn't appear to be catastrophic.

I think Krugman is reaching.

Times is tough

Now thieves are stealing pizza.  Could it be a publicity stunt?  McD has its Hamburglar.

On a more serious note, the jobs report is not so good.

JP Aerospace

I got this link from Al Fin's post.  The danger of this is that it may not be taken seriously.  After all, access to space up to this point has been with big expensive rockets.  The idea of using airships to get to space may strike some as being implausible.  After a look at the concept, I hope they succeed.  Based upon an admittedly inexpert opinion, it looks good.

I put the link up in my interesting reading section in the left sidebar.

Update:  Sat. 1/8/11, approx. 7:15am cst

I've been doing a little digging around on JP Aerospace.  Here is a blog with recent entries.   And an article written in 2004 by Jeff Foust of The Space Review.  Also, here's their official forum.


That's all I have for now.  As with everything that looks good at first, there's a catch.  The catch here, of course, is to get this concept to work.  I'll update with more if I can find anything.

Update: Mon 1/10/11, approx 11:30 am cst

A commenter on the Al Fin post (see link above and click on comments ) threw some cold water on this idea.  If more light could be shed upon the problems, perhaps some solutions could be found.  But I am not the one to find the problems.

Facts are stubborn things

I first saw that quote in a history book forty years ago.  It was attributed to Josef Stalin, but Stalin may have gotten if from none other than John Adams, one of the Founding Fathers.  Wherever it came from, it is true, no amount of wishing, hoping or denying is going to change a single fact.

When it comes to the economy, people just don't seem to want to face facts.  Where does wealth come from?  Is that a fact or a dream?  Without wealth, there can be no jobs, don't you think?  Yet none of the discussion seems to be about creating wealth.  No, the discussion is about going after those who have created wealth.  As if this was the problem.  Rather than a problem, I would suggest that this is the solution.

It must be a fact of human nature for those who have little to resent those who have much.  Although it may be possible to take away the rich man's wealth, once that is gone, where will new wealth come from?  Or to put it another way, if you kill the goose that lays the golden eggs, how will you get any more golden eggs?  Spreading the wealth is like killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.  It depends upon the notion that by having more, somehow the rich has taken it away from the poor.  The only solution seems to be to return to the poor what the rich has stolen.  That sort of thinking is what gives rise to such thoughts as is expressed by the article "The Political and Economic Assault on the Middle Class".

The Middle Class isn't poor, but it isn't rich either.  If this class wants to maintain its status, how is that possible?  If manufacturing jobs are the way to a better life, what do you do to replace it if the manufacturing jobs go away?  You could stop progress in its tracks and deny that progress which threatens the future of this class.  That means protectionism, if it means keeping manufacturing jobs by denying foreign competition.  Or it could mean freezing methods in place, if the new method means machines will take over jobs once done by people.  But change is a fact.  And facts are stubborn things.

If you freeze here, it won't mean that it will be frozen everywhere.  Progress could continue elsewhere and then you have a different discussion.  That discussion is how do you catch up when you are getting left behind.

Manufacturing jobs were created when someone got the idea that products could be made in greater quantity and at a better price than what was available before.  There's a principle involved here.  The principle is wealth creation.  The way to produce wealth is continual improvement over current methods.  The production of wealth is the best way to keep what you've got.  Once you stop doing that, you are living on the progress that has already been made.  In that way, wealth is consumed.  Eventually, if no new wealth is created, one finds oneself back in poverty.

The best jobs program is the production of wealth.  The worst jobs program is stopping wealth production.  For the poverty stricken do not hire, nor pay good wages.  Facts are stubborn things.  No one is exempt.

Repeal Amendment

In my opinion, this is an alternative to a Constitutional Convention.  States already have a veto power over the Constitution itself.  If 2/3 of the state legislatures petition Congress to call a convention, there is little that the Federal government can do about it- legally.

It is true, according to my calculations, that it would give power to a relatively small ( 1/3) number of people in this country.  Keep in mind, though, that this has to be coordinated by 2/3 of the states.  Trying to coordinate this large of a number of any group of people would be a daunting challenge, I would think.  Yet, it is possible that a small number of highly motivated people could have undue influence upon national policy.  This would seem to be bad, but that situation already exists.  This would add a counter weight to the influence that already exists.  It won't necessarily be a bad thing, as many of the opponents seem to think.

One objection has merit.  There is no time limit for a repeal.  The President gets ten days to decide to veto.  How long should 34 states be given in order to decide upon a repeal?  Should it be unlimited, or should a time -table be imposed?

The government is out of control.  Something needs to be done to get it back under control.  Since so many people are afraid of a "con-con", this is a possible alternative.  What would you prefer, a total rewrite of the Constitution, or a minor check upon Congressional power?  I would give this a chance.  Doing nothing doesn't appear to be a good solution.

Robert Zubrin on Energy Independence

This isn't new, I know. It may be useful to consider it though, as part of a comprehensive plan for energy independence. It would be especially useful in the case for methanol, which can be produced by a gas to liquid process from natural gas. Natural gas deposits have been found in recent years, which if converted to methanol, would be a big help with the oil import "addiction".