About Me

Name: Sgt Relic
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

First Failure of 2009

Posted by Sgt Relic on Sunday, January 04, 2009 6:18:23 PM
I'm an embarrassment to Barack!
I only scored 14 on the Obama Test
2009 is already starting to show signs of being a bad year. My lack of preparation for the coming administration has already lead to the dismal score I received on the Obama Test. Clearly, I am not ready to be RULED (didn't we get rid of rulers a few years back?) by "The One".
 
This writer resolves to "change" and "hopes" to be able to achieve a "0" before Inauguration Day! (Honestly, I can't explain what I got right) Click on the link to take the test.
 
Hat Tip to Crunch Time via Harvey at IMAO
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (45) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

How Many Chances Should You Get?

Posted by Sgt Relic on Tuesday, November 18, 2008 11:00:32 AM
Let’s say you are the considered the United States’ leading climate scientist, in fact, you are considered such a big brain that they put you in charge of something like the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies(GISS). And also imagine that you make a public statement concerning the weather that is so wrong that the Telegraph.co.uk describes it as a “surreal scientific blunder” and that the blunder is so blatant that not one, but two lesser lights in the climate science community are able to find this gigantic error in less time than it took your 2nd grade teacher to find the error in your 2 times tables.
 
Add to that, that this is NOT the first time you have made an extraordinary claim about record temperatures that were just flatly wrong. This is same Dr. Hansen who, just 30 years ago, said we would all freeze to death, and more recently had to retract his statement that the 90’s were the warmest decade when it turned out to be the 30’s. Hey! He only missed it by 60 years!
 
Would you expect to keep your job?
 
Well, you and I might expect to get sacked but not if you are Dr. James Hansen, and you and “nobel lariat” Al Gore are tight buds. [Small N for de-emphasis] Little mistakes like claiming last October was the warmest on record, and we’ve been keeping records for a long time now, despite such unscientific visual data in October, as snow in South Florida and London, you would probably not even be called to account for it if your employer is the U.S. Government.
 
If the cover afforded you by powerful friends with big houses, private jets, and money to burn, which may become useful since the planet is actually getting colder, you can always count on backup from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Chairman, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, a highly trained former railway engineer with no qualifications in climate science, according to the Telegraph story. Why you ask is a railway engineer in charge of the world’s most prestigious climate change committee? Well, the simple answer is: I have NO idea! Hey! It's the UN!
 
My guess is that these two characters are working up a Jon Lovitz style routine based on his Tommy Flannagan, pathological liar routine. You remember how this goes.
 
Tommy: [Dr. Hansen] Hello, I’m Dr. James Hansen and I’m the top guy at GISS and I know everything about temperatures. Yeah, that’s it. …Ehhhh, who am I kiddin’? I’m the smartest guy in the world! I’m here to tell you that it’s getting’ warm…er,eh; it’s going to get hot enough to fry the planet! Yeah that’s it, that’s the ticket! You’re all gonna die by next wee…eh, eh, eh, 2030! Yeah that’s right, 2030! But we have to do something about it by next week! No time to wait!
 
Below is thought to be a candid snapshot of Dr. Hansen waiting to make his announcement to the press in Honolulu, it might have been Miami, but it was one of those tropical locations. Also pictured is believed to be Dr. Aoki Kishiaka, another member of the IPCC without any climate science credentials. Dr. Kishiaka is the Chairman of the largest chain of Sushi restaurants in Japan. Although not covered in the article, it is thought that he was delivering a paper on the impact of climate change on the oceans. He postulates that rising sea temperatures will pre-cook the fish making Sashimi impossible to produce. (Ok, I made that last part up)
 
 
The public in the UK is starting to wakeup to the global scam but the good ole’ U.S. is still trying to beat this dead horse. A dishonest scientist, regardless of credentials, is not credible and should be removed before he creates any more public hysteria. The climate change people have missed the gravy train and it is now unloading at a bank or manufacturing company near you. Compared to the economic conditions in this country, global warming is just not scary enough! In fact, as we anticipate becoming homeless it may become a good idea.
 
It is currently 39 degrees here in Chesapeake, which is not a record but is lower than average, and this writer is feeling the cold. Brrrr! Sarge would appreciate it if you would all drive a few extra miles and breath really fast today. Maybe if we can get the CO2 level up I won’t freeze to death.
 
 
 
 
 
Sources:
 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (75) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Speaker, Formerly Known As Newt, Speaks!

Posted by Sgt Relic on Friday, April 25, 2008 6:30:57 AM
In his recent co-starring role with the odious Nancy Pelosi, in a Al Gore production of a Climate Change commercial, the formerly respected, former Speaker, Newt Gingrich, demonstrates his lack of understanding of science while managing to ignore the high degree of legitimacy his previous credentials lend to this despicable scam. If the gentleman was intent on destroying his credibility he could have simply accompanied Mr. Carter to the big Hamas ‘Love In’ or just endorsed Obama. Here is an excerpt from his TV spot:

“We do agree [speaking of Pelosi] that our country must take action to address Climate Change.”- Newt Gingrich

What Mr. Gingrich said amounts to ‘Climate Change is real and is a major problem which must be fixed" but if he and Nancy agree, you can bet she means fixed by government. The backlash from his TV spot caused him to ‘extend and revise’ his remarks with the following explanation:

“I don't think that we have conclusive proof of global warming. And I don't think we have conclusive proof that humans are at the center of it.”- Newt Gingrich

So he is saying in this statement ‘Climate Change is not real’, that begs the question: Why must we take action? 

JunkScience.com offers the best energy action plan I have seen gathered in two simple paragraphs. Here is that statement:

“Want to save the world & lead everyone from disaster? Fine, immediately nail down a guarantee to repudiate the UNFCCC and associated nonsense, vow never to attend or support the endless round of climate talkfests, defund all "research" and projects established under the excuse of "climate change" (as opposed real-time weather forecasting), cancel the "biofuels" boondoggle, halt all leakage of tax funds to NGOs and greenie fronts and give all EPA-related staff (state and federal) 12 months to find real jobs.

Then roll your sleeves up and get to work stripping every last mention of "environment" from legislation (it’ll take a while — the wackos have 40-years worth of bullsh*t [altered from the original due to TH filters] embedded in there). You’ll do America and the world absolute wonders.”

It would be very difficult to add to this succinct enumeration of the recklessness of the “just in case”, “could happen” and “may happen” scare scenarios floated by the media and politicians intent on an “Amish” solution to our economic and energy problems.

We hear constant talk of 'alternative fuels', yet none of these saviors actually articulate what precisely these fuels are, and when they will be available to take us to work. Ethanol from corn is a failure as a fuel additive simply because it is a negative energy additive, requiring more fuel to produce than is produced by ethanol. Simon Jenkins, writing in The Guardian, points out the dangers of government establishing goals for renewable fuel usage. Mr. Jenkins in an article titled "Time To Be Angry" gives us this new term, "Idiocracy", and explains in the following excerpts: [emphasis is mine]

"The consequences of the RTFO (Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation, the U.K. version of "Committed to Alternative Fuels") have been much trumpeted on these pages. It says enough that one car tank of bio petrol needs as much grain as it takes to feed an African for a year, or that a reported one-third of American grain production is now subsidised for conversion into biofuel. Jeremy Paxman pleaded the cause of this latest green wheeze on Monday’s Newsnight, while the United Nations food expert, Jean Ziegler, screamed for it to stop: ‘Children are dying ... It is a crime."

“If I have changed my mind, I am not sure the same applies to many greens. I have rarely encountered so much fanaticism and blind faith. Did those demanding fuel subsidies not realise that palm oil would wipe out rainforests and that ethanol from corn would use as much carbon as it saved? Did those pleading for wind farms really think they could ever substitute for nuclear power; or those wanting eco-towns not realise they would just add to car emissions? Did they not understand that, once the tap of public money is turned on, lobbyists will ensure it is never turned off - however harmful?”

Sugar would be a much better base for ethanol production and could come with the added benefit of lifting the Caribbean’s economic boat dramatically. Many of these very poor islands, such as St. Kitts, have ceased sugar production entirely, yet are still overgrown with sugarcane. Thank God that the Sugar Lobby headed this off with a 54-cents tariff on sugar imports. Other studies involving algae may prove to be fruitful for ethanol production, with none of the downside, half the footprint, and many times the production value, however this is future fuel as well.

We are already seeing the effects of 20%, or more, (see above) of the corn crop being diverted to ethanol, to achieve a 10% usage level, while simultaneously reducing the production of other vital crops. It has created a shortage of vegetable oil, one of the favorite base ingredients used for “bio-diesel” production. Giant birdie cusinarts are a farce in terms of energy production in the 21st century with their huge footprint and low electrical output. Solar energy is also impractical, requiring vast amounts of space and constant maintenance, again for a low yield. Nuclear power is capable of providing all of our needs for electrical generation. We have oil and natural gas reserves that are not being exploited, not to mention massive sand oil, shale oil and coal deposits complete with the technology to make them clean and useful. China is moving ahead in clean coal technology and expects a zero emission plant by 2015.

Mr. Gingrich says in his endorsement commercial that we must demand that our leaders address these issues, and in that he is correct, just not about what solutions must be demanded. It would take for example; 15 years for the U.S. automobile fleet to turnover, provided economic times remain strong. The falling dollar and increased foreign competition cannot be ignored.

Get the wheat, corn, soybeans, and other hallmarks of the “world’s bread basket” back into the fields. The oil producing nations are trying to bring down the American economy with runaway oil prices. Fine! Two can play at that game, how about a food for oil program only this time without the UN involvement.

We are now, and are for the foreseeable future, an oil-based economy. JunkScience.com asks the question "Gosh, you think energy may be too expensive?" Building on yesterday's remarks directed at Mr. Gingrich they added the following today: [emphasis is mine]

"Let’s see: in the UK there’s a howl over resurgent "fuel poverty" and in the US it’s merely a case that a lot of people can’t afford the heating required to avoid freezing to death in the dark. Meanwhile dopey politicians are pandering to the misanthropy brigade and buying into the gorebull warming farce. Gee, let’s all work hard at pricing energy out of everyone’s reach to curtail those nasty emissions of essential plant food, a.k.a. CO2, and then — let’s all be surprised when people can’t afford their heating.

What can we do? Who can we telephone?

Well, maybe it should be foolish legislators and panderers to people-hating nitwits trying to restrict the energy supply and increase its cost. Oh, and Newt? This is part of what we were talking about yesterday — there’s a massive downside to pandering to the energy rationers. Have future political ambitions?"
 
Alternatives such as hydrogen may in fact provide for future energy needs but those technologies are not readily available, and will not be available for perhaps decades. $120 a barrel oil is a reality and must be dealt with in the here and now. Even if all that JunkScience.com calls for were to happen tomorrow we would be decades away from fixing the damage that has been done to our energy industry. Drilling operations don’t happen overnight, nukes don’t spring from the ground ready to run and refineries take time to build and bring on line. This is the real crisis that the country has failed to deal with since those heady days of Jimma the Peanut, “Earth in the Balance” and “Nuclear Winter”.
 
To borrow a phrase from the greenies, “It may already be too late”!!!

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (72) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »