28 November 2011

Climate science, political hay for the asses in DC

3 years ago, I had some things to say about politicians lying to me for their own gain. I hindsight, I missed my opportunity to point out the fact that, when Obama's party finally agreed to increase domestic drilling for oil, their hand-picked company (BP, who subcontracted to Transocean) to perform drilling in the Gulf of Mexico was the one with more regulatory violations than all of its major competitors combined. Cynic that I am, I say that the selection was made specifically because it was felt that Transocean would cause a problem that would allow factions in the government to cite a reason for banning domestic drilling.

2 years ago, I weighed in on the subjects of climate change and the global warming movement, specifically stating that the science didn't support the conclusions being drawn and that, in my opinion, the motivations were purely financial in nature. In short, it was about the green, just not the green you think...

Well, now the second round of "Climategate" emails are coming out and we're seeing more and more evidence that the pro-catastrophic climate change movement was merely about getting governments around the world to fund projects designed to "stem the tide of global warming". If you're looking for a good article to read about this, here's a place to start: Jim Lacey's Scientists Behaving Badly.

One thing that I'm very curious to see is what happens to Pennsylvania State University professor Michael Mann as a result of the latest round of emails being released. Mann, if you remember, was the subject of multiple conduct investigations as a result of the first release of emails. While Mann was initially cleared of any wrongdoing, these new emails will undoubtedly trigger a subsequent investigation and I have a feeling that PennState, already reeling from the controversy surrounding the football program, might not be as forgiving as they were 18 months ago.

18 May 2011

Coming to terms on politics

There are two terms which get bandied about in modern politics. They are "conservative" and "liberal" and they're often used to describe a person's political leanings. However, I think we brutalize them.

According to dictionary.com, the definition of the word conservative is "disposed to preserve existing conditions... and to limit change", while the definitions for liberal include both "favorable to progress or reform" and "open-minded", "tolerant", and "not bound by traditional or conventional ideas". The point of note here is that the definition of "conservative" does not include "closed-minded", however, in modern thought, this definition seems to be implied. Conversely, the word "liberal" does not mean "revolutionary" though more than a few might disagree with me.

You will note here that neither term comes with any sort of financial connotation. Liberal does not mean "out to discharge the contents of the public coffers for 'the greater good' at the drop of a hat" nor does conservative mean "willing to part with the blood and lives of 'the underprivileged' rather than spend a dollar to help them". So, why do we use those terms to describe a person's financial tendencies?

23 February 2011

I have a feeling that there isn't a lot of competition in this market space...

Because my Dad would have appreciate things like this too… Matthews International

I like the pitch line: Standard of Excellence in Cremation Solutions. However, the informational videos, as well as the name of the equipment -- the SMOKE BUSTER -- are just too damn funny.