A Titanic struggle, the iceberg of debt. A Limerick.

“We have the wind in our face because the American people have the wind in their faces,” David Axelrod told an audience of New Hampshire politicians and business leaders September 27. “So this is going to be a titanic struggle. But I firmly believe we’re on the right side of the struggle.”

A Titanic struggle in Obama’s way

The iceberg of debt, what more can I say.

The music is playing,

Decisions delaying.

 Please Run! Sarah, run to our aid, don’t delay.

Ban inhalers to save the environment? FDA and EPA gone mad.

Sep 22 2011 FDA: Over-the-counter asthma inhalers containing chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) will no longer be made or sold after Dec. 31, 2011

Users of Primatene Mist will need a prescription product to treat their asthma. Asthma accounts for one-quarter of all emergency room visits in the U.S. each year, with 2 million emergency room visits. Each day 11 Americans die from asthma. There are more than 4,000 deaths due to asthma each year, many of which are avoidable with proper treatment like over-the-counter asthma inhalers.

The reason for their phase out is U.S. in complying to a U.N. mandate to phase out all CFC’s since they burn up the ozone layer over Antarctica, and to a lesser degree over the North Pole.

During the heydays of CFC production we produced about one megaton annually of all types of CFC combined. This led to an increase in CFC of about 25 parts per trillion in the atmosphere per year. After 1994  the CFC’s were phased out and replaced with HCFC’s. The total amount of CFC’s in the air is now decreasing by about 1 percent per year.

A quick calculation shows that over the counter inhalers release maybe 100 tons of CFC’s per year. This would increase the level in the atmosphere by 0.002 parts per trillion per year. Since CFC’s now are decreasing by 20 parte per trillion /year it would speed up the decrease by 1/10000.

So this banning of CFC inhalers will decrease the time to return to previous levels from 100 years to 99 years and 361 days. And for this we are banning $10 inhalers and forcing asthma sufferers to use prescription devices at more than 40 dollars, and increase the number of emergency room visits, and  even asthma related deaths. For four days in a hundred years?

In the meantime the Ozone hole is closing again by itself, maybe due to actions already taken.

Sasha and Malia are “Senior staff” on Michelle Obama African Safari. A Limerick.

The president’s two daughters, Sasha and Malia, were listed as “Senior Staff” on the manifest of a family safari to Africa, which cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars at a minimum, according to a government corruption fighter based in Washington.

Sasha, Malia are now “Senior staff”

That makes them fair game in the world of riff-raff.

The Botswana vacation

A joyous occasion

Who are they kidding? Well, I do not laugh.

Read more: President daughters now designated ‘senior staff’ http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=351813#ixzz1ZwaPDGjy

“Mormonism, America’s Islam” Can that possibly be true?

“Mormonism, America’s Islam” is a book written in 1912 by Bruce Kinney. Can that premise possibly be true?

Let us find out what Mormons and Muslims have in common.

Here is a list of Similarities between Muhammad and Joseph Smith:

– Visited by an angel.  (Muhammad: Gabriel. Joseph Smith: Moroni)
– Given visions.
– Told that no true religion existed on the earth.
– Was sent to restore the long-lost faith as the one true religion.
– A book produced from their teachings claimed to be “inspired by God.” (1)
– Each claimed to be illiterate or uneducated and used this as proof the book was inspired.
– Each claimed the Bible was lost, altered, corrupted and unreliable. (2)
– Each claimed his new holy book was the most correct and perfect book on earth.
– Each claimed to be a final prophet of God.
– Each claimed he was persecuted because of his pure faith.
– Each was a polygamist who had many wives.
– Immediately after his death a fight broke out from among the “faithful converts” as to who would succeed him.
– Both religions have those who follow the “original doctrine” of the founding leaders and like these founding leaders, have been violent, polygamists, and have revelations justifying their evil actions. (3)
– Each has progressive revelation. (“New” revelation always replaces older revelation that became inconvenient to the prophet.)

– Each advocated a theocratic type of government.

– Each rejected original sin and the doctrine of the trinity.
– Each taught a salvation by good works.

– Each taught a here-after with graded rewards for works.
– Both claim Mormonism and Islam to be the world’s fastest growing religion. (4)

 

(1) Joseph Smith: The Book of Mormon, Muhammad: The Quran.

(2) The golden plates with reformed Egyptian hieroglyphics shown to Joseph Smith are nowhere to be found, so no source critical analysis can be performed. The sayings of Mohammad were written down in part, but mostly carried by oral tradition until 130 years later when the Quran was written down and agreed upon by a committee.  No source critical analysis is allowed, since this would blaspheme Muhammad. Contrast this with the Holy Bible. It has received many revisions of source critical analysis, and when the Dead Sea Scrolls were found it turned out that most, if not all claims of alteration were false.

(3) Mormons have turned peaceful, no violent conversion is permitted, but if you want a Temple wedding you have to fulfill your missionary duty. Muhammad started the concept of Jihad, or Holy War. In the Quran it means just that, and according to Sharia Law 1/8 of all your charitable giving must go to Jihad. Many modern Muslims take Jihad to be proselytizing by persuation.

(4) The fastest growing faith is Evangelical Christianity, mostly in Asia and frequently of the Charismatic type.

 

Don’t drink the milk from your own cow! Ruling in Wisconsin.

The State of Wisconsin, the County of Dane

has issued a ruling that I call insane.

If you own your own cow

We will still not allow

you drink from its milk, to appeal is in vain.

What follows is an excerpt from Judge Patrick J. Fiedler (Circuit Court, Branch 8, State of Wisconsin) ruling:

(1) no, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to own and use a dairy cow or a dairy herd;

(2) no, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to consume the milk from their own cow;

(3) no, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to board their cow at the farm of a farmer;

(4) no, the Zinniker Plaintiffs’ private contract does not fall outside the scope of the State’s police power;

(5) no, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to produce and consume foods of their choice.

(6) no, the DATCP did not act in an ultra vires manner because it had jurisdiction to regulate the Zinniker Plaintiffs’ conduct.

The picture to the right is a cow with a methane recapture kit affixed. Sign of things to come?

A Climate skeptic’s epiphany response.

A Climate skeptic’s epiphany response.

Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post started his op-ed with the sentence: “For the clueless or cynical diehards who deny global warming it is getting awfully cold out there”.

Yes, indeed. It is getting cold alright.

Robinson quoted Richard Muller, a true scientist, as having said “Global warming is real”.  Muller did that by noting what skeptics already know that we were having a warming trend between 1970 and 2000. He then presented the data with a 10 year moving average, making the end time 2006. This data resembles the famous “Hockey stick”, with a rapid and accelerating temperature rise. Muller also pointed out that of all temperature stations one third show a cooling trend. All stations monitor CO2 filled air, so what makes the difference? A separate analysis shows that weather stations in continuous use since the year 1900, located in an unchanging environment show no warming trend between 1900 and 2010, while weather stations in airports and near paved parking lots, buildings and air conditioners do. A thinking person would conclude that something else than rising levels of CO2 would be the cause of rising temperatures. It seems to me that land use changes would play a major role, since only those weather stations that are subject to land use changes show an increase. Since 2000 we have had a cooling trend of about 1 degree Fahrenheit/century, and the cooling seems to be accelerating. We have not had a major volcanic eruption since Mt. Pinatubo in 1991, so something else must be the source of our present cooling trend. Cosmic radiation resulting from low solar activity leading to more clouds has a near perfect correlation with temperature data for the last 30 years. Yeah, that’s it. Maybe we get our heat from the Sun! True global warming skeptics to not deny climate change, nor do they deny CO2 being a greenhouse gas. The latest data indicate that if the amount of CO2 is doubled the global temperature would rise about 0.3 degrees Celsius, rather than the 1.5 to 5 degrees that IPCC(A U.N. panel) has guessed. This temperature rise is largely concentrated in the temperate regions of the world and would be mostly beneficial. In addition, with a doubling of the CO2 level, crop yields would increase 30 to 45% allowing the earth to feed that many more people.

What is so horrible about that?

Towards the end of the paper the scientists conclude: “The human component of global warming may be somewhat overestimated.”

I love understatements.

The electric car. Is it good or bad Karma?

The electric car. Is it good or bad Karma?

Boy are we advancing in leaps and bounds:

Here is the Roberts electric car, built 1896.

It gets 40 miles to the charge.

116 years later, how far have we come in battery development?

Most electricity is produced by burning coal.  Much peak electricity is produced by burning natural gas. We have recently discovered large quantities of shale deposits. One of the chief developer  of the North Dakota deposits is Mr. Hamm, CEO of Continental Resources, who at one time had a brief talk with President Obama. Mr. Hamm told Obama of the revolution in the oil and gas industry and how we have the capacity to produce enough oil to enable America to replace OPEC. He wanted to make sure that the President knew about this.

The President’s reaction? He turned to Mr. Hamm and said: ‘Oil and gas will be important for the next few years. But we need to go on to green and alternative energy. [Energy] Secretary [Steven] Chu has assured me that within five years, we can have a battery developed that will make a car with the equivalent of 130 miles per gallon.’

116 years after the Roberts electric car we have the 2012 Chevrolet Volt. It gets 36 miles to the charge.

But it is not over yet.

The latest entry in the electric car business is the Fisker Karma. It sports 32 miles to the charge.  When running on electricity, the claim is it gets the equivalent of 54 miles per gallon. After that it has a regular sports car engine that gives 20 MPG. What does that last statement mean? Batteries store energy and can never be more than 100% efficient. There is a loss of energy when you charge them and a loss of energy when you discharge them. The energy is typically produced by burning coal. By charging batteries you need to keep old coal burning plants in production longer. The average energy efficiency of an aging coal plant is 31%, the transmission losses are about 8% and battery efficiency is about 75%. When electric car companies calculate MPG equivalency they only take into account the battery efficiency. For the Karma the total energy efficiency equivalence would not be 56 MPG, but 16 MPG.

For now the Karma will be built in Finland, with a half billion dollar loan guarantee from the Federal Government. After one year this energy guzzler is supposed to be built in Delaware. Maybe it will be as popular as the Chevy Volt, which is on track to sell 6000 vehicles this year.

There already exists a car that claim 135 miles per gallon equivalent fuel consumption.

(The picture to the right shows the Tesla in a car crash in of all places Aalbaek, Denmark. The Tesla is at the bottom.)

The car is Tesla, a new car company set up privately in 2003. It got a 465 million dollar Federal loan guarantee in 2009, but has yet to turn a profit. The car is all electric, and gets up to 300 miles to a charge.  It can be yours for a mere $109500 plus taxes, but you will get a 7500 dollar federal tax rebate unless you live in Colorado where you will get an additional 40000 dollars in state and local tax rebate. The car is sold to rich playboys, who use it as the ultimate chick attractor, and the making of the car is financed on borrowed money. If one is to include the losses in producing the 4000 cars sold thus far, the cost per car approaches 200000. But fear not. One of the sources of income for Tesla is the sale of zero emission credits to other car companies so they can meet their emission standards. It is the new round of charlatans selling indulgences so the global governance can be realized.

Why am I down on electric cars? First, the energy to drive the car must have been produced somehow. As long as we use coal to produce electricity there will be more CO2 in the air with electric cars than with diesel powered cars. Second, electric cars are heavier than corresponding gasoline powered cars and have less room. Third, it takes an awful lot of mining to produce all the rare materials that goes into a modern battery. This too takes a lot of energy and leaves scars on the landscape. Fourth, batteries last only so long and are expensive leading to a much more expensive car to purchase and maintain.

The same arguments can be raised against solar and wind power. It takes more energy to mine and refine the materials than the equipment generate since they generate the electricity when they want, not when the need is there.

Are we doomed? Not at all. As oil and gas is becoming more and more expensive, especially if the Middle East cuts off its supply, we should build up the nuclear power plants, not with old Uranium based nuclear plants with all their nuclear waste, but with small, distributed thorium based plants. They have 0.01% as much nuclear waste as uranium based plants and are earthquake safe and much less vulnerable to sabotage. They also respond much better to demand fluctuations. As the plants would be more distributed it would lessen the need for an expanded electric grid, which is unbelievably vulnerable to sabotage. The long and short of it: Go Thorium and then Electric cars!