31 December 2009


di volo.

E di storia: cavallo di Troia on Planet Janet.

VDH predice la Guantanamoizzazione di Obama. Speriamo.

30 December 2009


Mentre emerge la connessione Yemen-Mutallab, e specificamente con alcuni rilasciati da Guantanamo per "riabilitazione" a casa loro, il cretino in capo si e' spostato dal campo da golf per rimproverare gli addetti alla sicurezza - ma come gli altri cretini del suo staff non riesce a unire i puntini.

Islamismo ? Per carità, non sia mai. Continuiamo a mentire a noi stessi.

E magari chiediamoci ipocritamente come mai il sistema e' cosi' "poroso"...: look in the mirror whilst searching for someone to blame. In part your snotty remarks over the past "eight years" with regard to the Patriot Act plus the NSA's surveillance systems are at least a large portion of the failure.

Invece chiudiamo Guantanamo, rilasciamo terroristi alla "riabilitazione" - questa è la soluzione ! Stop, per carità !

E naturalmente vessiamo i passeggeri normali: On Christmas Day, a Muslim fanatic attempted to butcher hundreds of Christians (dead Jews would've been a bonus). Our response? Have airport security analyze the contents of grandma's mini-bottle of shampoo -- we don't want to "discriminate."

[O]ur majestic and sleepless protectors [...] now boldly propose to prevent airline passengers from getting out of their seats for the last hour of any flight. Abdulmutallab made his bid in the last hour of his flight, after all. Yes, that ought to do it. It's also incredibly, nay, almost diabolically clever of our guardians to let it be known what the precise time limit will be. Oh, and by the way, any passenger courageous or resourceful enough to stand up and fight back will also have broken the brave new law.

For some years after 9/11, passengers were forbidden to get up and use the lavatory on the Washington-New York shuttle. Zero tolerance! I suppose it must eventually have occurred to somebody that this ban would not deter a person who was willing to die, so the rule was scrapped. But now the principle has been revisited for international flights. For many years after the explosion of the TWA plane over Long Island (a disaster that was later found to have nothing at all to do with international religious nihilism), you could not board an aircraft without being asked whether you had packed your own bags and had them under your control at all times. These two questions are the very ones to which a would-be hijacker or bomber would honestly and logically have to answer "yes." But answering "yes" to both was a condition of being allowed on the plane! Eventually, that heroic piece of stupidity was dropped as well. But now fresh idiocies are in store. Nothing in your lap during final approach. Do you feel safer? If you were a suicide-killer, would you feel thwarted or deterred?

Why do we fail to detect or defeat the guilty, and why do we do so well at collective punishment of the innocent? The answer to the first question is: Because we can't—or won't. The answer to the second question is: Because we can. The fault here is not just with our endlessly incompetent security services, who give the benefit of the doubt to people who should have been arrested long ago or at least had their visas and travel rights revoked. It is also with a public opinion that sheepishly bleats to be made to "feel safe." The demand to satisfy that sad illusion can be met with relative ease if you pay enough people to stand around and stare significantly at the citizens' toothpaste. My impression as a frequent traveler is that intelligent Americans fail to protest at this inanity in case it is they who attract attention and end up on a no-fly list instead. Perfect.

It was reported over the weekend that in the aftermath of the Detroit fiasco, no official decision was made about whether to raise the designated "threat level" from orange. Orange! Could this possibly be because it would be panicky and ridiculous to change it to red and really, really absurd to lower it to yellow? But isn't it just as preposterous (and revealing), immediately after a known Muslim extremist has waltzed through every flimsy barrier, to leave it just where it was the day before?

What nobody in authority thinks us grown-up enough to be told is this: We had better get used to being the civilians who are under a relentless and planned assault from the pledged supporters of a wicked theocratic ideology. These people will kill themselves to attack hotels, weddings, buses, subways, cinemas, and trains. They consider Jews, Christians, Hindus, women, homosexuals, and dissident Muslims (to give only the main instances) to be divinely mandated slaughter victims. Our civil aviation is only the most psychologically frightening symbol of a plethora of potential targets. The future murderers will generally not be from refugee camps or slums (though they are being indoctrinated every day in our prisons); they will frequently be from educated backgrounds, and they will often not be from overseas at all. They are already in our suburbs and even in our military. We can expect to take casualties. The battle will go on for the rest of our lives. Those who plan our destruction know what they want, and they are prepared to kill and die for it. Those who don't get the point prefer to whine about "endless war," accidentally speaking the truth about something of which the attempted Christmas bombing over Michigan was only a foretaste. While we fumble with bureaucracy and euphemism, they are flying high.

29 December 2009


[...] What does calling this medical-care legislation “historic” mean? It means that previous administrations gave up the idea when it became clear that the voting public did not want government control of medical care. What is historic is that this will be the first administration to show that it doesn’t care one bit what the public wants or doesn’t want. In short, this is not about the public’s health. It is about Obama’s ego and his chance to impose his will and leave a legacy. [...]

The appointment of White House “czars” to make policy across a wide spectrum of issues — unknown people who get around the Constitution’s requirement of Senate confirmation for cabinet members — is yet another sign of the mindset that sees the fundamental laws and values of this country as just something to get around, in order to impose the will of an arrogant elite. That some of these czars have already revealed their own contempt for the values of American society in the things they have said and done only reinforces the point.

In a sense, this administration is only the end result of a long social process that includes raising successive generations with dumbed-down education in schools and colleges that have become indoctrination centers for the visions of the Left. Our education system has turned out many people who have never heard any other vision and who can only learn what is wrong with the prevailing vision from bitter experience. That bitter experience now awaits them, at home and abroad.

Glenn Beck ? No no. Thomas Sowell


La compagnia low cost irlandese ha deciso di sospendere i voli domestici in Italia a partire dal 23 gennaio in risposta alla richiesta dell' Enac di «accettare più semplici forme di identificazione per i passeggeri che viaggiano sulle rotte nazionali» (secondo premio, quest'ultimo, per la migliore scusa, dopo "non posso uscire, mi fanno male i capelli").

Probabilmente qualche amico di Mutallab voleva viaggiare con la tessera della latteria turnaria.


Meanwhile, the Western world clicks its collective tongue and criticizes "the violence" and the lack of respect for rights of free speech and assembly, as if that were the point. Not a single Western "leader" has found the nerve and the common sense to denounce the regime and call for regime change. Indeed, President Obama couldn't drag himself away from the beach and the basketball court on Oahu to say anything at all. Nor could our secretary of state. Or Robert Gates, for that matter, whose men and women are being blown up in Iraq and Afghanistan, courtesy of the mullahs.

Michael Ledeen, qui.

26 December 2009


One would be giving James Cameron too much credit to take Avatar (with its mindless worship of a nature-loving tribe and the tribe's adorable pagan rituals, its hatred of the military and American institutions, and the notion that to be human is just way uncool) at all seriously as a political document. It's more interesting as an example of how deeply rooted these standard-issue counterculture clichés in Hollywood have become by now. Cameron has simply used these familiar bromides as shorthand to give his special-effects spectacular some resonance. He wrote it this way not to be controversial, but quite the opposite: He was making something he thought would be most pleasing to the greatest number of people. Qui.

24 December 2009

Buon Natale

E già che ci siamo, vi regalo il miglior video sulla vicenda del GW : di Bill Whittle.

E qui un altro da Co2science.org:

22 December 2009

Health care - all'una di notte ;)

No one would have imagined that this is how it would end, with a couple of cheap deals and a rush vote at one o'clock in the morning, but that's were we are. (M. Mc Connell, minority leader)

21 December 2009

Magari fosse

Da Scrappleface:

Delegates to the global climate conference in Copenhagen sat in stunned silence today as President Obama solved the global warming crisis with a single 25-minute speech.

"While the challenges we face may seem insoluble," the Nobel laureate said, "the solution is actually quite simple. It's historically reliable. It works every time it's sincerely tried."

"Basically, the problem is that poor nations are broke," Obama explained, "and rich nations don't want to throw their money down a totalitarian rathole, into the hands of tyrants who see this treaty as a gold mine and who have no intention of reducing carbon emissions. Since we need trillions of dollars to fund development of speculative green technologies, the only answer is for the poor nations to get rich fast."

Obama said the broad outlines of his plan included having poor nations "adopt the time-tested Protestant work ethic, free-market capitalism and equal justice under law."

"Once you see your vocation as a calling from God," he said, "you work diligently toward excellence, to bring glory to your creator. If your property rights are guaranteed under law, you work to improve yours, and to acquire more, by serving others. Under my plan, within half a century, the less-developed nations will go from being pathetic dependents to equal trading partners."

While skeptics said the president's plan would put off a solution until the world's coastlands were under water, Obama said, "Free men and women solve problems for profit, for accolades and for inscrutable personal purposes ... but they do solve problems. If, in five decades, there's still a climate crisis, we can all get together, kick in an equal share per capita, and hire someone to fix it."

15 December 2009

Bring in the clowns - er, lawyers...

Trouble this way a-comin'.

Same here. Mi sto scompisciando.

Antropogenic global health care ?

La health care bill is down in flames, e finora anche i tentativi di estensione di Medicare sono stati affondati, nonostante le pressioni dirette della Casa Bianca via Rahm Emanuel su Harry Reid. E a proposito, queste negoziazioni disperate per un singolo voto non vi ricordano un altro Senato recente ? Sì, certo, nella storia italiana... ;).

Sul fronte liberal appaiono simpatici "ohmyGodweareallgoingtodie!" alla St.Al Gore. Catastrophism has become so predictable. Yawn. :D


Questo articolo su Julian Simon è bellissimo.

John Christy spiega qual'è il vero punto morale della scienza del clima. Altro che Gore&Blood.

Ieri sera ho rivisto questo video di Bill Whittle (lo script è qui) sull'eccezionalismo americano. Wow. He's got a point.

Vested interests ?

Buon Dio, no ! Ma quando mai ?

Per quanto: se sei un riccone affarista ben connesso, essere capo dell'IPCC può far comodo. Fantastico. Ma uno si chiede, non è banale to connect the dots...?

The head of the Asian Development Bank (ADP), Haruhiko Kuroda, warned governments that a failure to reach a climate deal in Copenhagen could lead to a collapse of the carbon market, which would hit efforts to deal with climate change.

It helps of course to know that Mr Kuroda is best known in greenie circles for setting up the ADB Advisory Group on Climate Change – chaired by millionaire businessman Rajendra K. Pachauri, part-time chairman of the IPCC.

An interesting member of that Group is Dr Klaus Toepfer, Founding Director, Institute for Advanced Studies Climate, Earth System and Sustainability Sciences and former executive director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). And it was UNEP, of course, which set up the IPCC - which now has as its part-time chairman millionaire businessman Rajendra K. Pachauri.

One other member is professor Hironori Hamanaka, Chair, Board of Directors, Institute of Global Environmental Strategies (IGES). The IGES claims to be "a research institute that conducts pragmatic and innovative strategic policy research to support sustainable development in the Asia-Pacific region." It will come as no surprise, therefore, to learn that the organisation works very closely with TERI, whose Director-General is millionaire businessman Rajendra K. Pachauri.

Yet another is Ms Huguette Labelle, also a Board Member of the UN Global Compact organisation, the very same UN to which millionaire businessman Rajendra K. Pachauri belongs. Hilariously, Ms Labelle is Chair of Transparency International, the global civil society organisation "leading the fight against corruption." TI's mission "is to create change towards a world free of corruption."

The Board also includes professor Jeffrey D. Sachs, Director, The Earth Institute at Columbia University. This is the same Earth Institute which set up the Climate-Risk Center, inviting millionaire businessman Rajendra K. Pachauri to become its first Board Chairman.

One other interesting character is Dr Emil Salim, an adviser to Indonesia's President on environment and sustainable development issues. But he is also a member of APFED - the Asia-Pacific Forum for Environment and Development. One of its major activities is sponsoring the "Partnership Initiatives for Knowledge Network and Capacity Building" – in conjunction with TERI as a major partner. But it does not stop there. Dr Salim is also Chairman of the Asian Energy Institute, set up in 1989 by TERI and supported by it ever since. And the Director General of TERI is millionaire businessman Rajendra K. Pachauri.

Last but not least is Professor Dadi Zhou, Director General (Emeritus) of the Energy Research Institute, which of course is otherwise known as TERI, the Director General of which is millionaire businessman Rajendra K. Pachauri.

No longer, it seems, does Rome hold a pre-eminent position. In this brave new world of climate change and sustainable development, all roads lead to Rajendra K. Pachauri.

14 December 2009

AGW (ehm, my b***s ?)

[Quasi verbatim un commento che ho lasciato in giro re:climategate e AGW.]

Il tema non sono le fonti alternative e la tecnologia migliore: tutti le vogliamo - se non altro perche' i venditori di petrolio sono thugs della peggior specie. Il tema non e' nemmeno se questo gruppo di banditi vada messo sulla strada per misconduct scientifica (secondo me ovviamente si': taroccatori blackmailers che manovrano riviste, blogger, giornali, etc. - cosa volete di piu'). Il tema non e' nemmeno il tipo di misconduct - anche se sinceramente l'argomento "stanno tarando il termometro" non regge proprio (p.es. stanno usando serie di temperature dedotte da anelli di alberi -gia' tragico- e le usano selettivamente e addirittura cambiandole a mano per gli anni recenti per farsi tornare la ricostruzione estrapolata indietro nel tempo; oppure correggono i dati storici ottenuti da una stazione a 150 m.s.l.m. allineandoli a mano a quelli a 10 m.s.l.m. - salvo scoprire che il termometro a 10 m.s.l.m. e' sul tetto in mezzo ai condizionatori; oppure usano dati di stazioni che un tempo erano affidabili e ora sono in piena citta tra asfalto traffico etc.; e cosi` via).

Insomma: il tema vero e' un altro (sorry for the benaltrism): e' l'isterismo sull'AGW e quel che ne segue. L'argomento del consenso, come giustamente osservi, e' una bestemmia di per se`. Ma tralasciamo il rigore epistemologico, e osserviamo la sequenza logica:

a) c'e' GW anomalo e senza precedenti
b) c'e' il pericolo di GW runaway
c) il GW e' cattivo (perche' danneggia piante e animali e ci fa annegare e quant'altro)
d) il GW e' causato dalla CO2
e) la CO2 la emettiamo noi umani, ergo AGW
f) di noi umani, emettiamo di piu' noi industrializzati
g) quindi dobbiamo compensare i paesi non sviluppati

a) Falso. C'e' stato un warm medieval period, una piccola era glaciale, e poi GW circa dal 1860, con una grossa oscillazione in su negli anni 30 (nel 1940 era aperto il passaggio a N-O che tanto fa notizia oggi) e poi in giu' con un minimo nei primi anni '70. Poi una salita di nuovo per circa 20-25 anni. Ora sembra che stia levelling off. Se si guarda la scala, sia nelle misure dirette che nei dati glaciolocigi (carotoni di ghiaccio artico groenlandese siberiano e antartico), niente di anomalo (e mi rifiuto di prendere in considerazione una ricostruzione su 2000 anni basata su 12 anelli di pino di dovechesia scelti ad hoc da Michel Mann: che peraltro non riproduce niente di queste features note).

Andando piu' indietro e' ancora meglio: il ghiaccio dice che siamo in un periodo interglaciale come parecchi altri, e che anzi ci va di culo che non siamo in una glaciazione. Inoltre le temperature sono state spesso molto maggiori di ora nell'ultimo mezzo milione di anni; e se e' per quello anche negli ultimi 5000. In sintesi: niente di anomalo, e niente di senza precedenti.

b) ma c'e' il pericolo di GW runaway

Questo in base a modelli. siccome GIGO (garbage in, garbage out), un modello sbagliato produce rumenta, per esempio se ci metti dei meccanismi di positive feedback quando l'evidenza ovvia di qualche milione di anni e' che i feedback in questo gioco sono negativi; e inoltre quando trascuri le heat islands, le nuvole :D , e tante cose note come i cicli niño e niña o pacific decadal oscillation etc etc. Lo stesso Trenberth, selfproclaimed guru dell'energy transfer e di fama AGWistica e climategatiana, scrive pubblicamente che del bilancio energetico si sa poco e niente. Infatti per quante acrobazie si facciano, i modelli in carico all'IPCC predicono uno scenario malamente cannato rispetto alle misure degli ultimi dieci anni. Il fatto che piu' modelli lo facciano suggerisce che tutti usino circa la stessa teoria.

c) GW is bad

Al livello dell'attuale riscaldamento, e' una fesseria. Apparentemente, dato che non c'e' segno di estinzioni massive negli ultimi 10000 anni, anche per warming piu' consistenti. un warming come quello degli ultimi 150 anni e' ottimo per tutti i paesi settentrionali e temperati, e fa poca differenza altrove. I record storici di fatto mostrano proprio questo. In groenlandia e in america i vikinghi ci sono andato quand'era caldo ben piu' di oggi; in Inghilterra si faceva il vino (non avrei voluto assaggiarlo data la cucina inglese, ma comunque...). Al caldo e con tanta CO2 le piante prosperano e gli animali pure. Qualche orso dovra' cambiare (forse) zona di caccia, ma parrebbe che contrariamente a quel che dice St. Al Gore, la popolazione aumenta invece di essere decimata. [questo in base alle considerazioni in a) e b). Ovvio che se aumenta la temperatura di 40 gradi...]. Lo scioglimento dei ghiacci artici e' modesto ma comunque non cambia il livello dei mari, mentre quelli antartici sembrano aumentare (altro indizio che ci sono altri cicli in gioco). Ma anche se fosse, l'allarmismo in questo caso e' una fantasia, ehm, bagnata.

d) la CO2 e' la causa del GW

E' abbastanza dubbio essendo percentualmente poca in atmosfera. Soprattutto, non e' sola: ci sono molti altri gas serra, di cui di gran lunga il principale e' il vapore d'acqua, su cui abbiamo controllo nullo. E' vero che c'e' correlazione (non buonissima, di recente) con variazioni di T, ma la correlazione non e' causazione: da quel che si osserva, sembrerebbe proprio che la variazione di T causi la variazione di CO2 e non viceversa.

e) AGW

La salita in temperatura dall'1850 al 1930 circa non ha nulla a che fare con la nostra CO2, che era poca. Da dopo la WW2 cominciamo a industrializzarci seriamente e il livello di CO2 "umana" sale costantemente - ma la T si livella, poi scende a un minimo relativo negli anni 70, poi risale per 20-25 anni, e da un po' riscende di nuovo. Che razza di correlazione sarebbe ? Inoltre noi immettiamo in atmosfera qualcosa come il 3% della CO2 che gia' c'e' . Non mi sembra cosa di cui preoccuparsi (a meno di pensare che la nostra sia piu' CO2 di quella del passato) dato che la CO2 e' registrata nel record storico glaciologico con valori fino a 20-30 volte il livello di oggi, e le oscillazioni massime di T sono di 10 gradi.

I punti f) e g) sono polluzioni da no-global, ma va ammesso che "Politically it's an idea of genius, engaging at once every left-wing erogenous zone: rich man's guilt, post-colonial guilt, environmental guilt. [...]" . Mentre abbeveri i tuoi cavalli a Fontana di Trevi, nota che Obama sta ricattando il Congresso per mezzo di EPA / Clean Air Act per fare passare il cap and trade che altrimenti si sognerebbe: "This naked assertion of vast executive power in the name of the environment is the perfect fulfillment of the prediction of Czech President (and economist) Vaclav Klaus that environmentalism is becoming the new socialism, i.e., the totemic ideal in the name of which government seizes the commanding heights of the economy and society. The objective is the same: highly centralized power given to the best and the brightest [...]. This time, however, the alleged justification is not abolishing oppression and inequality but saving the planet."

13 December 2009

E te pareva

Che sorpresa. "Un uomo con problemi mentali". Uno... ? Veramente, è pieno in giro. E per esempio hanno nome e cognome e facce da Facebook:

Provvidenziali accelerazioni

Using his best Chuck Schumer imitation, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon jumped in front of some cameras at Copenhagen and assured us that his cause was noble.

His demeanor was serious. Contemplative.

He searched his vocabulary for the precise phrase to convey his deepest conviction … and you could see his eyes sparkle when he hit upon the shim-sham-inducing word, accelerating, to describe what was happening to global warming.

Good Lord! I thought to myself. This is bad! If global warming is accelerating, if it is worse than we have predicted — happening three times faster than any scientist ever feared in his worst nightmare — then, by golly, we sure ought to do something!

But as I was jumping up to write a check to the Sierra Club, I remembered. Hadn’t I heard Ban Ki-moon’s phrase somewhere else before?

I had. And often.

I turned to my trusty archives, and discovered something. At least since the late 1990s, and probably before, journalists, “activists,” and even politicians have been claiming: “It’s worse than we thought.”

Only two things can account for the constant use of these words:

(1) It really is, each and every time we turn around, getting hotter by amounts greater than we had predicted.

While this is logically possible, if this rhetoric were consistently true then by now the Earth’s fish would be swimming in water as hot as Tiger Woods is in.

(2) The politicians, etc., have forgotten the definition of accelerating.

This is plausible. It is, after all, a physical term, and most non-scientist global warming activists are demonstrably not well versed in their physics.

There is a third possibility, but knowing how earnest the Copenhagen crowd is, we can scarcely give it any weight.

It is — I hesitate when I write this — that the activists are exaggerating, even (gulp) fibbing.

For our own good, of course. To convince reluctant people to act. Let us hope this third scenario exists only in my fevered imagination.

All that is rotten is not in Denmark. Thomas Friedman, an opinionist at a local paper in New York, had a cuppa with Wolf Blitzer on CNN and assured him that he had looked into this whole global warming thing and discovered that, yes, the blanket of air surrounding the Earth was growing thicker with gas (we can resist the joke, can we not?) and that the only solution to prevent permanent heat stroke was to, so to speak, throw off the covers by buying insurance.

Of the kind underwritten by the ever-trustworthy and always-reliable United Nations.

Friedman’s idea is to take money from individuals who live in a few well-off countries and give it to some bureaucrats on First Avenue. They would then dole this money back out to persons unknown, such that these persons would be able to take the stuffing out of the blanket.

A fine idea, perhaps. Especially given that the UN’s historical stewardship of Other People’s Money has been such a raving success.

But, even if this isn’t so, Mr Friedman’s concern for humanity has gotten the better of him. Just as the activists had forgotten what to accelerate meant, Mr. Friedman has shown us he does not know what to insure means.

It works like this, Thomas. You fear an outcome that, if it happened, would cost X dollars. You don’t have, or wouldn’t like to pay, that much. So you seek an insurer, who estimates the probability X will occur. Using that estimate, the insurer asks you to pay Y dollars, where Y is much less than X. If you toddle along and the outcome never realizes, you are out Y dollars. But if the event happens, the insurer pays you X, and you are happy.

The outcome here is, of course, devastating global warming. The insurer is the United Nations. Problem is, we have been assured that “it’s worse than we thought” and that “the science is settled,” so the probability of the outcome is — by the insurer’s own estimate — certain. To write a policy in this case would be foolish.

That is, since the outcome already arrived, it would be more sensible to spend the money that would have gone for the policy to paying for the effects of the outcome, and thus remove the overhead costs that accompany any contract. And since those effects are local and varied, the money would be better left in the hands of local people and not given to an insurer.

All this changes, and insurance becomes financially viable, if the activists are willing to admit that our future is not assured, that the worst is only possible and not certain, or — how would they swallow this? — that they might be wrong.

12 December 2009

Pugno -anzi, fist- di ferro

Questo zar di Obama non lo conoscevo. La sua job description e' Safe and drug-free school (scuola sicura e senza droga). Apparentemente, a lui, di sicuro interessa più che altro il sesso, meglio se omosex e con annessi fantasiosi. Come passato impresentabile, improprietà nel contesto, sconcezza decadente, e pol-correct batte Van Jones, John Holdren, Eric Holder, Anita Dunn, e Carol Browner messi insieme. Vabbè, OK, magari non proprio, quasi...

11 December 2009

Siamo troppo fessi

Aumenta il numero degli scettici sul riscaldamento globale. Poca, troppa, o errata informazione? O semplicemente limiti cognitivi ?

Complimentoni per la faccia di tolla - sia per scrivere (l'autrice) che per pubblicare (il Corrierino) una cosa del genere.

[Rettifica: Mi pareva troppo anche per il Corrierino, fosse pure sezione speciale Copenhagen (tipo quella dei calendari, per dire). Si tratta invece del Il Corriere della Serra. Essendo i giovanotti in questione dei giornalisti, ahem, scientifici prodotti dalla SISSA e da essa endorsed avevo pensato che il C. li avesse presi sul serio. Ma, come era lampante a pensarci un attimo, mi sbagliavo.]

Eros a Copenhagen

Politically it's an idea of genius, engaging at once every left-wing erogenous zone: rich man's guilt, post-colonial guilt, environmental guilt. [...]

On the day Copenhagen opened, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency claimed jurisdiction over the regulation of carbon emissions by declaring them an "endangerment" to human health. Since we operate an overwhelmingly carbon-based economy, the EPA will be regulating practically everything. Not since the creation of the Internal Revenue Service has a federal agency been given more intrusive power over every aspect of economic life.

This naked assertion of vast executive power in the name of the environment is the perfect fulfillment of the prediction of Czech President (and economist) Vaclav Klaus that environmentalism is becoming the new socialism, i.e., the totemic ideal in the name of which government seizes the commanding heights of the economy and society.

Socialism having failed so spectacularly, the left was adrift until it struck upon a brilliant gambit: metamorphosis from red to green. The cultural elites went straight from the memorial service for socialism to the altar of the environment.

The objective is the same: highly centralized power given to the best and the brightest [...]. This time, however, the alleged justification is not abolishing oppression and inequality but saving the planet.

(Lo sapevo che il titolo vi avrebbe attratto ... ;)

10 December 2009

E a proposito,

a parte tutti i dettagli, quelli tra noi scienziati che fanno seriamente il proprio mestiere abbiamo tutte le ragioni di essere incazzati come vipere cornute.

Non sono così catastrofista , ma questo articolo ha buonissime ragioni.

E anche questa replica.

E pure questo pezzo.

the study of climate change, under the aegis of "dangerous global warming caused by human carbon dioxide emissions," has long since been captured by the small group of well connected, well networked and well funded atmospheric scientists and computer modellers who advise the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and whose nearly every utterance confirms their ignorance of the true course of climate history and change on our planet - a topic that is the domain of geologists, not meteorologists and computer jockeys.

09 December 2009

Notizie dal culto

Perchè é proprio un culto !

Dalla Pyong Yang del clima, il primo di, spero, molti report. E se storcete il naso perche' il corrispondente dice "gender this and gender that" e che sembra una "cultish love fest": mind you, e' Bruce Bawer, autorevole scrittore gay.

Dopo il giornalista collettivo, l'editorialista collettivo.

Considering LiveAid's success at ending hunger in Africa, I'm awfully glad newspapers are finally applying this model to global warming. There's nothing like the sight of fifty-four newspapers performing a synchronized exercise in smug self-congratulation to induce life-altering change.

Dal Wall Street Journal, invece
1) the UN faces reality;
2) per chi non l'ha notato, la EPA della zarina Carol Browner sta usando surrettiziamente il Clean Air protection act ... contro la CO2. Il prossimo sarà l'ossigeno ? Ecco qui : il vaso di Pandora è stato aperto;
3) The tip of the (Climategate) iceberg.

Sleazy science and rotten economics. Ma davvero !

La logica di Copenhagen è dubbia.

Sarah Palin e Copenhagen. Checchè se ne pensi di lei, questo editoriale sembra ragionato.

Infine, per non perdere l'abitudine, uno dei tanti tarocchi di dati in giro per il mondo, stavolta da down under.

On a lighter note:
a) i warmists son poveri cricetini.
b) ed ecco la poesia letale di St. Al Gore.

Copenhagen sintetizzata

"Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please" - Mark Twain

"A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes" - Mark Twain

"Repetition does not transform a lie into a truth" - FDR

"A lie told often enough becomes the truth" - Lenin

"The public will believe anything, so long as it is not founded on truth" - Edith Sitwell

06 December 2009

Giornalismo d'antologia

Ieri ho letto di sfuggita il titolone di prima pagina di Repubblica. Posso sbagliare le virgole, ma il succo era: "Il boss pentito accusa Berlusconi", banale ma buono per il No-B day (a proposito, vero che ci siamo mantenuti a ovest di "Sergio, trattoria romana" in zona Piazza Farnese, ma il presunto mezzo milione di gonzi avremmo dovuto ben vederli, o no ?). Il sottotitolo molto meglio: "Lui e dell'Utri (PDL) responsabili delle stragi del '92/93". Ancora incerti i dettagli del loro ruolo nell'omicidio di Giulio Cesare.

[P.S. Giornalismo di lotta e di governo a Copenhagen: l'ennesimo, peraltro del tutto risibile scare-video che mette in mezzo i bambini.]

[P.P.S. Editoriale di Sartori sul Corrierino. Giustamente dice che sono assurde le pretese per cui i paesi sottosviluppati devono essere risarciti per quel passato durante il quale gli «sviluppati » li hanno inquinati; e che conta chi sporca e spreca di più pro capite. Piccolo dettaglio: queste sarebbero scuse per non agire di fronte all'emergenza. Il discorso di policy e' basato come al solito su un non-fatto, il "collasso ecologico" che, purtroppo per Sartori, non esiste. Collasso, aggiunge, "che la scienza non aveva ancora captato", udite udite, quando Ehrlich ci dava per estinti a breve per colpa della demografia, e il Club di Roma prevedeva l'esaurimento delle risorse naturali entro il 1975/80. Come se queste previsioni, del tutto cannate sia quantitativamente sia qualitativamente e quanto a conseguenze rilevanti per le politiche internazionali, fossero tappe paradigmatiche della scienza, del tipo "mela di Newton". Tristemente, in tutta evidenza, gli attori delle policy internazionali pensano e si informano come Sartori, e hanno il suo stesso background.]

Wait a minute

In giro la gente dice che le e-mail del CRU sono una fessata e che non cambia niente. In Italia non se ne parla quasi per niente - almeno a vedere dalle reazioni di gente normalmente informata, se non del tutto ideologically unbiased. Il Corriere ha la sezione speciale dedicata a Copenhagen come quella dei calendari. Abbastanza penoso. Tra i mille posti, questo sommario. Insomma: qui si parla di osservazioni spesso dubbie o indirette, modeling di dati sperimentali fatti con i piedi, oltre a blackmailing, meddling con le riviste, taroccamento esplicito di dati e procedure (ad esempio per nascondere ulteriormente cose note in paleo/geo-climatologia, tipo il warming/cooling oscillante periodico di cui a little ice age e warm medieval, etc.). mica male, no ?

Anche se questo meriterebbe piu' tempo e ragionamento, che esista o meno un GW più che fisiologico, e che sia antropogenico o meno, il punto qui è che l'AGW come ci vessa oggi è la classica pseudoscienza politicizzata, una specie di religione sostitutiva per i self-anointed orfani del marxismo, che ha totalmente sequestrato il dibattito scientifico vero su questo tema, che è importante o quanto meno interessante (e non è l'unico caso, putroppo - HIV/AIDS è un altro esempio). Da questo conformismo vengono le cose francamente ridicole come le chiamate a diventar vegetariani di Sir Paul McCartney (le mucche cagano, e producono metano, che è un gas serra), o l'imminenza dell'allagamento di tutta la California: Ocean Beach a San Francisco, metri 1 sul livello del mare, andrà sott'acqua, udite udite, nel 2099. Roba che in un mondo normale mi farebbe solo sorridere o venire un lieve malumore leggendole al cesso su Io donna. Lazzi a parte, l'atmosfera del "dibattito" è -o è stata fino ad oggi- totalmente tossica, e in modo autoalimentante: provate a scrivere che l'AGW è dubbio, non dico nemmeno una pirlata, e a sopravvivere accademicamente, ad avere grant, eccetera. Ci sono milioni di esempi. Per esempio questo e questo (as of Dec 7, 2009), scritto da un signore che ha lavorato 12 anni per l'IPCC, o ancora questo dall'esperto di uragani pressured a dire balle di comodo. Oppure, guardate la lista degli autori del Copenhagen Diagnosis, laddove it looks like the “small group of scientists” caught out by Climategate are pretty much the same people who make up the scientific consensus on global warming and write the official reports that governments rely on to inform their policy decisions," e avanti così. E' forse per caso che questo è quel che finisce sui giornali mainstream e sulle riviste trendy che discettano sul verdismo chic ?

In generale, poi, la parola "settled" fa correre la mano alla Colt a qualunque scienziato degno di questo nome. Non tedio con gli esempi, che sono legione, anche nei casi piu' solidi di scienza normale. In questo caso, è completamente ridicolo definire settled un campo con uno sviluppo teorico medievale e uno stato sperimentale primitivo per una quantita' di motivi.

A proposito, non so quanto sia noto che il famoso hockey stick viene da ricostruzione di temperature dedotte da anelli di alberi, mentre questi dati grezzi dalla NOAA sono piatti. Falegnameria creativa nel primo caso, suppongo.

04 December 2009

Next in line

La NASA....

E naturalmente Kyopenhagen (Kyoto+Copenhagen - non è la pronuncia campidanese...) : perchè il fallimento che si prospetta non è solo per via del Climategate.

It was often said that Pres. George W. Bush “refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol.” This is technically true — because Bush couldn’t sign Kyoto. It was already signed during the Clinton presidency (Bush didn’t sign the Treaty of Versailles, either). The important point is that Clinton immediately shoved it in his desk drawer because he knew it would never be ratified by the Senate. Indeed, the Senate voted 95–0 to not even consider ratifying it so long as developing countries like China were left out of the scheme.

Overlooked by the mobs who decried Bush’s “treason against the planet” (to borrow a phrase from Paul Krugman) is the fact that Barack Obama has opted to stay out of the Kyoto system for the same reason. Making carbon fuels more expensive for us while not making them more expensive for China and Co. means that fossil-fuel users will move their businesses to the developing world even faster while costs and taxes for consumers will skyrocket.

While it’s great fun — and entirely worthwhile — to make a big stink about Climategate, it would be a shame if people believed that Copenhagen’s inevitable failure hinged on this one scandal. Even if the CRU researchers were the model of scientific dispassion, these schemes are pointless. Indeed, even if global warming is the threat the alarmists claim it is, it makes no sense to waste trillions of dollars on “fixes” that will do little to fix the alleged problem. It’s time to start over, beginning with the science.

Reset the reset


Ronald Reagan told the world that he would side with freedom against Communist aggression and autocracy. George Bush the elder told the world that its borders would stay sacrosanct, and one country could not swallow another. Bill Clinton finally showed that a genocidal dictator could not practice mass murder in the heart of Europe and get away with it. George Bush the younger removed two of the worst terrorist regimes on the planet, the Taliban’s and Saddam Hussein’s, and replaced them with constitutional systems, while keeping the U.S. homeland free from another 9/11 attack.

Barack Obama is telling the world that all of the above was far too complex — and characteristic of an America that was not listening, but dictating. Instead, like any good college dean, Obama is now running a faculty seminar on a global scale. We listen to everyone’s gripes, add in our own personal angst, draw up pros and cons, offer polite, non-judgmental suggestions to all sides, and recommend 50-50 solutions that can be ratified by the newly revitalized U.N. — all to be summed up by a bow or two and a soaring address touting our own wisdom and success.

We may hope that some old wise men are now whispering to the Obamians to reset their reset button. You see, it's doubtful that the world can take another three years of this.

Conyers Herring, RIP

Su Physics Today di dicembre, un necrologio a firma Phil Anderson, Walt Harrison, e Ted Geballe (!!!) su William Conyers Herring, una delle menti nobili della fisica dello stato solido del ventesimo secolo. Notate i nomi che compaiono tra i suoi advisors, colleghi, estimatori, studenti, collaboratori...

A proposito: noto che manca menzione dei lavori fondamentali di Herring su crystal shape, surface energy, dislocazioni... ;)

Born on 15 November 1914 in Scotia, New York, Conyers grew up in Parsons, Kansas, where he started school in the fifth grade at the age of five. At age 14 he entered the University of Kansas. He completed his bachelor’s degree in astronomy there in 1933, then spent a year studying at Caltech. He transferred to Princeton University because it had fewer required courses, and he greatly valued having free time to study independently. Conyers switched his focus from astrophysics to solid-state physics, and he and thesis adviser Eugene Wigner, along with fellow graduate students John Bardeen and Frederick Seitz, created the modern band theory of solids. His PhD thesis, “On Energy Coincidences in the Theory of Brillouin Zones,” was completed in 1937. For the next two years Conyers was a National Research Council fellow at MIT, where he developed the orthogonalized plane-wave method, the first workable scheme for calculating the electronic energy bands in solids; the scheme was subsequently used by Frank Herman at RCA to make the first realistic band-structure calculations of germanium and silicon.

After having taught physics at the University of Missouri from 1940 to 1941, Conyers served as a member of the division of war research at Columbia University during World War II. In 1946, after a short professorship in applied mathematics at the University of Texas, he was invited to Bell Labs in Murray Hill, New Jersey, by William Shockley, who was impressed with his war work.

At Bell Labs, Conyers created the theoretical physics department, which for years was the world premier group in what was then known as solid-state physics. He organized a journal club that met weekly, in which he or local experts critically reviewed what he deemed to be significant results from the literature. Meanwhile, solid-state physics was expanding to represent more than half of all physics. At a special journal club meeting, held in honor of his 80th birthday, Walter Kohn spoke for himself and many others when he described Conyers as “the wise old man, to whom we all went for advice and information.” His famous catalog of thousands of three-by-five cards, which he kept in a black suitcase, contained references and terse critical comments compiled from long hours in the library. To include ongoing important work from Russia, for which publications were unavailable in English during the cold war, Conyers simply learned Russian. With those cards he served as a one-man Google—actually more useful, because he had already filtered out the extraneous material. Wigner remarked to one of us (Geballe) that whenever he wanted to know something in solid-state physics, Conyers was his first resource. Albert Overhauser referred to him as the “patron saint of referees.”

The range of his individual contributions was remarkable. His review of exchange among itinerant electrons, which started as a chapter but turned into a book on magnetism, was one of the first texts to recognize the role of collective excitations in metals. In reviewing the book (Physics Today, April 1967, page 75), John Van Vleck said that “at Harvard . . . the solid-state physicists usually called [the preprint] the telephone book, because of its origin at Murray Hill, its bulky size in mimeographed form, accuracy, attention to detail and usefulness. However, it has one quality that a telephone book lacks, namely the quality of being critical in the best sense of the word.”

Conyers predicted in 1951 that what are now known as nanorods should have a much greater range of elastic strain than bulk material because they would either be free of dislocations or have too few to generate observable slip. That prediction was soon verified by experiments he did with John Galt that demonstrated the enormous strength of tin microwhiskers.

Because Bell Labs had a compulsory retirement age of 65, Conyers moved to Stanford University as a professor of applied physics in 1978 and a consultant at the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center, where he jointly published papers on unexpected properties of hydrogen in silicon.
Ne so qualcosa ;)

03 December 2009


Hicks files on climategate.

(B.t.w. Gitmo ? Da andarci in vacanza.)

Climategate unfolding

Nuove cosine vengono alla luce ogni giorno, cominciano a cadere le teste e influenzano la politica, ma i libtards just don't get it. Se non avete tempo di leggere quella più lunga (post di sommario qui), ecco la quick guide to why Climategate does matter:

1. A bunch of climate scientists at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia have been caught out cheating. They distorted evidence, hid or lost inconvenient raw data, manipulated the science towards a particular end, and set out to silence hard-working, decent, honest scientists who disagreed with them.
2. Those climate scientists aren’t just any old bunch of scientists. They work at the very heart of the IPCC process. They – and their friends: for this is a small and tight cabal, comprising around 43 scientists – are the ‘lead authors’ on the IPCC’s reports. They also supply the most important of the four data records used by the IPCC. They are the people telling our political leaders that the world is suffering from catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming – caused largely by the growth in CO2 emissions – and that urgent action needs to be taken to prevent it.
3. According to one estimate – by the International Energy Agency – the global cost of dealing with AGW will be $45 trillion (that’s 2/3 of the world’s current entire economic). This will mean our energy bills will rise by perhaps a factor of ten; that we will be subject to more and more pettifogging rules on what kind of lightbulbs we use and how we dispose of our trash – perhaps even how often we’re allowed to fly; it will mean governance by unelected “experts” and technocrats from the UN; it will cripple industry; it will mean higher taxes; it will take money from the middle classes in the Western world and hand them over in the form of “compensation” to kleptocrat dictators in the Third World; it will almost certainly send the global economy diving into a double dip depression. We are, in other words, about to be presented with the biggest bill in the history of mankind.
4. Given what we now know about the reliability of 2 and the basis of 1, are we really sure that with 3 we’re getting our money’s worth?

02 December 2009

Tempi moderni

Un commento che mi pare interessante a un post di VDH.

You search the hypothesis to find the best answer, [but today, people] start with an answer and throw out the entire process of searching, if it doesn’t fit.

We are being ruled by a cultural dynamic that spans four decades. It’s the Aspirin Bottle culture, that surrounds us. One aspirin eased my pain, so the whole bottle will cure everything that ails me.

The left, lefter, leftist side of our culture had some very heady days just about 35-40 years ago. Think about this soberly for a moment : 1) VietNam; 2) pollution; 3) race relations; 4) gender equality; 5) sexual freedom; 6) Watergate.

What we are witnessing today, is the “whole bottle” force feeding of the need to remain the “moral superiors” for our society. The left, lefter, leftist side of the spectrum got an enormous rush out of being on the “correct” side of the above issues (no matter whether it’s true: it’s a truism so ingrained it’s not worth trying to convince anyone otherwise). So much so, that they now would lie, cheat, steal, rape, pillage, plunder…in order to keep the moral high ground. An oxymoron? Of course. That’s the point.

Pollution was worth fighting against…once everyone agreed, or nearly everyone…it became axiomatic that the leftists would be on the "right" side of the ecology issue. And they could force feed everyone their pedantic screeds, without the fussy business of actually doing any real scientific research. Ergo, global warming fraud. Committing fraud to keep the moral superiority rush alive is Machiavellian, but once you have that high ground and it is your lifeblood, your raison d’etre…you will break any rule to retain it.

War…if “we were right” about Viet Nam…then, ergo…*every* war is unjustified, for the wrong reasons, a quagmire. An aspirin helped, the whole bottle is 100 times better.

Martin Luther King marched for decency, so today…if you disagree with any person or on any issue related to race…you are a NASCAR loving, tobacco chewing, backwoods racist. In fact, you don’t even have to disagree on any issue…just if you don’t agree with *everything*…the mere dissent is enough to label you a racist. On issues having noting to do with race, whatsoever.

Pick an issue. Any issue. It’s a magic trick. Sleight of hand. If you are a Republican, Watergate was a crooked mess…therefore, you are not worthy of anything but contempt.

It therefore matters not one whit what the best solution might be. The culture vulture has swallowed reason whole and it does not need a place at our table. The legacy media is the falconer for this bird of prey. It has eaten logic, reason, fairness, principled disset. The hypothesis doesn’t matter: the answer has been pre-written. And you know what they call swallowing a whole bottle of aspirin? Attempted suicide.

Trattasi di

attentato ! (Aho, j'hanno aperto 'a machina.)