Interview WOW!!! – What Happens When Both Guest And Host Live In An Alternate Universe !!!!

Share Button

Yesterday, on CNN’s Spitzer / Parker, I swear I had watched the most amazing thing – Bill Maher, led by Spitzer, stated emphatically that Obama “never blames the Republicans for anything, he’s their best friend…”!

WOW! I’m stunned. Did I really hear them say that????

Here’s the vid:

See! I wasn’t imagining it! They did say it!!!

Maybe I have a very short memory or something, but… if I recall… wasn’t blaming the Republicans for everything THE ENTIRE campaign strategy for Democrats in 2010???

Obama never blamed the Republicans for the debt, the mortgage crisis, the financial crisis, deregulation of the banks, the wars, and… Gosh, what am I leaving out???

And wasn’t there some campaign speech given by Obama about not putting the car in “R” after driving into a ditch??? OK, logically, if you’ve driven into a ditch, and you’re being pulled out, wouldn’t putting the car in “D” be the move that puts you right back into said ditch???? The rhetoric never really made sense… but that’s politics I suppose.

Back on topic. The funny thing is, the message that everything was the fault of the Republicans DID penetrate the voting consciousness! Look at this headline!

Americans Blame Bush, Not Obama, for Deficit, Jobs, Afghan War

Seems pretty clear to me general public got the message.

So, given that Spitzer and Maher are flat out wrong, alternate universe type wrong, and Obama DID indeed blame Republicans for everything, AND convinced the general public that this was the case, there are two ways you can look at the devastating defeats suffered by the Democrat party in November:

(A) Either the Democrats and Obama have proven themselves to be even more inept than the Republicans,


(B) You can blame voters for being STUPID!!!! A winning strategy to be sure.

Well, at least we’re clear on one thing – Democrats such as Maher and Spitzer and Tina Brown of Newsweak think you’re all stupid!

And, for a bonus, If I were pulling a Stephen Green aka Vodkapundit type game, and taking a shot for every logical fallacy presented in this vary short clip, I would be happily incoherent and drooling on the floor by the end of it.

Spitzer / Parker – I know your rating aren’t where you would like. Here is some advise. It might be helpful if you present guests who haven’t been in a cave or live in an alternate universe or maybe simply pay attention to the world around them or something.

Sometimes… Expect The Unexpected!

Share Button

UK Green columnist George Monboit wrote this!

You will not be surprised to hear that the events in Japan have changed my view of nuclear power. You will be surprised to hear how they have changed it. As a result of the disaster at Fukushima, I am no longer nuclear-neutral. I now support the technology.

Surprise!!!! I know I am! According to all media accounts, Fukushima was going to certainly be the deathknell of the nuclear power industry. How could it possibly survive this horrible scare! After all, it was proclaimed a “Code 6” and was worse than the horrific disaster at Three Mile Island….

Oh, people are now realizing Three Mile Island wasn’t the horrible disaster it was made out to be??? And that newer reactors are much better designed than the 60 year old tech when Fukushima was built???? (Hint – if you read my blog, the name Onagawa might ring a bell)

Color me pleasantly surprised!!!!

Hat Tip: Insta-P

Global Warming “Oops”… And Contradictions.

Share Button

Kilimanjaro has long been a “poster boy” for Anthropogenic Global Warming. The doomed mountain glaciers theme was echoed in 2009 by the ever reliable Huffington Post on the eve of the upcoming Copenhagen Climate Conference To Save The World!

The snows of Kilimanjaro may soon be gone. The African mountain’s white peak – made famous by writer Ernest Hemingway – is rapidly melting, researchers report.

And there is always this:

“Within a decade, there will be no more snows of Kilimanjaro”

Al Gore, from “An Inconvenient Truth”, 2006

Uhm… WRONG!!!!!!

Science is awesome… especially when it doesn’t do what hard-core extremists want it to do. The authors of the ten year old study that scared the living BeJesus out of the environmentalists, and put Kilimangaro on the list of “All The Great Things Doomed Due To Global Warming” are back-tracking.


The glaciers aren’t melting nearly as fast as they hoped… er thought. Why did I first write “hoped”? Because it seems the predictions made in the paper were not based on science, but on the expectations of the beliefs of many in the warmist / alarmist camp of climate scientists. And when subsequent studies surface that lessen the sense of doom and alarm… I use the term “surface” with some jest, because studies of the type I’m about to explore never seem to surface in the main stream media.

Example: How about this from the University of Washington, which appeared in the American Scientist, titled “The woes of Kilimanjaro: Don’t blame global warming “. Here is a 2009 study by Nathan Torbick that suggested that the ice cap melting was starting to level off. Never heard about it??? Neither did anyone else, at least those who aren’t paying attention to such things.

And I bet you haven’t heard that the Kilinamjaro have been melting for over 130 years, with the biggest known melt off taking place between 1880 and 1953. Here are the melt numbers, complements of the USGS.

Year Area
1880 20 km2
1912 12.1 km2
1953 6.7 km2

1976 4.2 km2
1989 3.3 km2
2000 2.6 km2
2003 2.5 km2

Note, the volume gets smaller because, well, after the massive melt-off of the first half of the 20th century, there simply isn’t as much ice to melt. Here is a 2009 graph of this melt, containing the measures form the USGS, as well a a few peer reviewed studies.


The author of the graph suggested caution – remember this word, as it will be important in just a moment – as one of the studies was considered preliminary at the time. But the graph does suggest the melting was starting to slow… unless you didn’t want to suggest that.

Note that the 2005 estimate shows an increase since 2003. I suspect that this increase is not real, but shows the uncertainties of estimating glacier areas from satellite. In any event, the recent measurements do show that the ice loss rate has decreased or even stopped. After 2000, Thompson’s data was linearly extrapolated to predict the glaciers’ complete demise in 2015 or so

Which brings me to this! Data are just numbers! It’s how you interpret it that counts!!!! The 2002 paper that predicted the loss of all glaciers on Kilimanjaro by 2015 is still out there, and has been widely cited in other studies of Global Warming, never mind Al Gore’s silly self promotional documentary. And only now we learn how the prediction was made…It was a guess!!!

Note this most damning quote.

“Unfortunately, we made the prediction. I wish we hadn’t,” says Douglas R. Hardy, a UMass geoscientist who was among 11 co-authors of the paper in the journal Science that sparked the pessimistic Kilimanjaro forecast. “None of us had much history working on that mountain, and we didn’t understand a lot of the complicated processes on the peak like we do now.”


“None of us had much history working on that mountain, and we didn’t understand a lot of the complicated processes on the peak like we do now.”

So WHAT THE HELL were you doing publishing and supporting this uneducated prediction AS IF IT WAS CERTAIN?????

I wonder if anyone will demand a retraction from Thompson and Hardy?

Well… Hardy seems like a decent guy, but don’t expect one from Thompson, who says this!

The opinions of global warming doubters will change on a dime depending on whether it is cold winter or a hot summer. The only opinion that matters is nature’s. Nature has a way of humbling us all. It still remains to be seen just who that will be in the end”, Thompson said.

Riiiight…. Good Lord! Does he not see the hubris in that statement???… Especially since HE, Lonnie Thompson, is on record saying THIS!

Climatologists, like other scientists, tend to be a stolid group. We are not given to theatrical rantings about falling skies.

Really???? Could have fooled me!

Most of us are far more comfortable in our laboratories or gathering data in the field than we are giving interviews to journalists or speaking before Congressional committees. Why then are climatologists speaking out about the dangers of global warming? The answer is that virtually all of us are now convinced that global warming poses a clear and present danger to civilization….

Unless large numbers of people take appropriate steps, including supporting governmental regulations aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions, our only options will be adaptation and suffering. And the longer we delay, the more unpleasant the adaptations and the greater the suffering will be.

Sooner or later, we will all deal with global warming. The only question is how much we will mitigate, adapt, and suffer.

Does this sound like the same opinion as this” The only opinion that matters is nature’s. Nature has a way of humbling us all. It still remains to be seen just who that will be” in the end“? How can that come out of the mouth of the same person?

And, you know, it’s not as if it’s skeptics who have been changing “their opinion on a dime“!!!!!!

And to compare climate scientists with “evil skeptics” – From the new Kilimanjaro article: here is what H. Sterling Burnett, a senior fellow and head of environmental programs at the National Center for Policy Analysis, a conservative think tank based in Texas says:

“The Kilimanjaro predictions were suspect at the time they were made. Critics noted that there was abundant evidence that the snow caps on Kilimanjaro had been in retreat decades before greenhouse gas emissions began to rise dramatically in the middle of the century,…

This doesn’t prove that humans aren’t contributing to global climate change, but it should call into question the confidence we can have in such claims,…

He worries that “costly, big government programs” to quell global warming will do more harm than good, “especially since the costs of these programs are felt now, and fall hardest upon the poor and those least able to absorb higher prices and lower employment in order to maybe stave off a small portion of distant-in-time harms.”

I have a quibble with the second paragraph, as a wrong guess does not “call into question” the validity of climate science. But which guy here seems to be following the proper scientific principle of “caution”?

PS. My favorite quote from the article?

Representatives for Al Gore declined to comment on this article.

And if you want more Global Warming contradictions and changing on a dime moments, here’s this!

Plants move uphill
Plants move downhill

Northern Hemisphere winters warmer
Northern Hemisphere winters colder

Sahel to get less rain
Sahel to get more rain

Hat Tip: Jimbo @ WUWT.

The Late Great State Of California – When The Levees Break!

Share Button

California…  Rain. Snow. Rain. Snow…  And more rain!

I was just looking at the weather for this week. This cold storm is going to drop more rain and snow. For those who haven’t been keeping up with the stats on these things, California is already above the precipitation totals for the year.

With that in mind, consider this. For the last two weeks, we’ve seen the media and Californians freaking out over highly improbable possibilities of any kind of melt-down of the two nuclear reactors here in the state. “”California Has Earthquakes!”…. Oh No!

Yet there IS a good probability that this very wet season will bring a disaster that no one is mentioning. Around the Sacramento area, in the northern part of the Great San Joaquin Valley, there is a levee system that was created to provide more living and farming space in the state. The total area encompassed by the levee system is over 1,100 square miles. As the melt season approaches, there is more water in the Sierra Nevada Mountain range stored in the form of snow than there has been in a very long time. When this melts off in April through July, the old levee system is going to be taxed like it hasn’t been in a very long time, and like everything else in California, this system has been poorly maintained. I for one am very concerned that many of the citizens of this state are going to pay for that negligence.

Here is a map of the delta region.


Here is the Wiki. With the exception of maybe Stockton, which sits on the outer edge of the delta, there are no huge population centers in danger. There are however many small communities that are spread out throughout the region. So while everyone is panicking over a disaster that is unlikely to happen, the momentum for the one that IS likely and will destroy many lives goes ignored.

Plus… Think of all the Delta Smelt that will die!!!!

OK. The last think is a somewhat private joke between us Californians! 🙂

Still, this spring may be the one where we pay for the complete lack of serious leadership in the state.

PS. Yes, now the Led Zeppelin song IS stuck in my head!


Share Button

Guaranteed the best thing I am going to come across on the web!

Thank you Don Ramirez for posting this.

Like… But… Cosequences???

Share Button

Everyone is talking about the vid of the bully getting his comeuppance by the victim. I really like it. Wish I would have had that kind of courage when things like that happened to me. Of course, I was very small for my age. It would have been nice to have more body mass too!

That said, this won’t end well. Either the bully will sue the victim due to injuries and win the lawsuit, or he will commit suicide, and the victim will be blamed for fighting back.

Sometimes, I wish I wasn’t so cynical.

Here’s the video. I hear it’s getting pulled left and right, so I can’t guarantee this will work for long.

Oh look… The kid that was being bullied is getting suspended! What is wrong with this world.

Blitzer Bungles – Mistakes His Own Ignorance For Spin

Share Button

On Hugh Hewitt’s Monday show, he was harping on the extremely poor American news coverage of the situation at the Fukushima nuclear plant that has been unfolding during the last few days. I sometimes have issues with Hewitt, but here he’s absolutely right.

Yesterday, I watched Wolf Blitzer make a complete ASS of himself.

He was talking to one of the plant managers at the San Onofre nuclear power plant, which is located on the coast of California between Los Angles and San Diego. Wolf was asking about the building specks of the reactors, and what they are built to withstand. Well the guy was trying to tell Wolf that, since the plant is not to far from a fault that “could be capable” of producing a quake up to 6.9 on the Richter scale, the reactor is built to withstand at least a 7.0 directly under the plant.

Then, Wolf automatically brings up the dreaded SAN ANDREAS FAULT!!!!

OH NO!!!!

San Onofre guy says that is not a threat and…

“But the San Andreas can produce a quake as big as the one we just witnessed in Sendai!” Blitzer interrupts.

San Onofre guy tries to explain that the San Andreas fault is many miles away, and also that they don’t build the reactors to Richter scale standards, but to Peak Ground Acceleration, measured in g’s. If the San Andreas does produce a quake of the same size, because of its distance from the plant, the motion transmitted to the reactors would be less severe than that of the closer fault.

Blitzer, apparently being an East Coast Guy and not at all familiar with either the location of the San Andreas fault, the location of it relative to the San Onofre plant, or anything having to do with seismology besides the Richter scale, asks the S.O. guy to clarify, because well…. we ALL KNOW the San Andreas produces Earthquakes as large as the one in Japan.

San Onofre guy tries to explain it to Wolf again, apparently to no avail. After the interview ends and Blitzer prepares to segue to the next story, he suggests that the S.O. guy was trying to spin him….


I was in a local eatery watching (here is a shout out to my friends at Mika’s – great Japanese food), and I think a few people looked at me because I had blurted that out loud. But I was furious! Blitzer just accused this guy of trying to spin him due to Blitzers own ignorance on the topic.

You see, I’m an ex geology major, specializing in seismology, so maybe I shouldn’t assume that a layman should understand these things. But Blitzer isn’t just a layman! He’s supposed to be a journalist! He’s had three days to look up stuff relating to both seismology AND nuclear reactor specifications and how they are built. Hell, I had never really thought about it, but what the San Onofre guy was saying made perfect sense.

Wolf… I’m here to lend you a hand. Follow me.

They don’t build reactors according to a Richter scale metric… Of course they don’t. The Richter scale relates the size and strength of the quake at the epicenter!!!!! That is the point or focus on the ground directly above the hypocenter of the seismic event… where the pressure released within the earths crust, some miles below the surface. The farther away you are from the origin of the event, the epicenter, the less energy will reach you. Throw a rock out into a lake. Where the rock hits the water surface, the wave will be large. If you managed to throw the rock far from shore, by the time the waves you created reach the shore where you’re standing, they will be hardly noticeable. If you are closer, you will get a bigger wave, but it still won’t be as big as it was at the spot where your rock disturbed the water and created the wave in the first place. If you’re half a mile away from an F-5 tornado, you won’t feel as much wind as you would if you were standing right next to the thing! You get the picture. That is why the Richter scale is not relevant when you are talking about shaking… Because it doesn’t consider any energy as it propagates away from the epicenter.

Here is a map of the San Andrea fault in relation to the San Onofre nuclear power plant.

Wolf… Notice exactly how far away the fault is from the reactors. Now lets examine a shake map of last years Sierra El Mayor quake, also known as the San Diego Easter Day event and note the color scheme, which indicates the ground acceleration.


Note that as you move some distance from the epicenter – that would be where the star is, the amount of shaking experiences diminishes! If you’re right at the epicenter, you feel the full force and intensity of the energy release by the quake. If you’re a hundred miles away, as San Onofre is from the San Andreas fault, the ground shaking felt at that distance has dissipated, and though you will certainly feel it and get rattled, you will not experience the same amount of ground shaking as you would if you were right at the epicenter.

Wolf….. This is what San Onofre guy was trying to explain to you! I sincerely hope you apologized for insinuating that he was trying to mislead you based on you own lack of knowledge.

Oh, and one more thing. It was not the shaking of the Earth that has caused all the problems for the plant. The reactors rode that out safely. It was the damage caused by the Tsunami which destroyed the back-up generators and got us to where we are now. Because it’s basically in the middle of nowhere (sorry Inyo CA, but you’re kind of in the middle of nowhere) my guess is that a quake generated from the San Andrea in this region WILL NOT generate a Tsunami. Hopefully you understand the reasons why and I don’t have to write another post explaining THAT to you…

/ rant off /

Caption Cat Monday

Share Button

mean kitty

Nuclear Meltdown! – A Little Perspective UPDATED

Share Button

On the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant and what is happening —

I have seen WAY too many people freaking out… I’m not talking about being very concerned, I’m very concerned… I mean really freaking out over the problems they are having at that reactor.

“It’s Chenyobl”.

No. It’s not. The Fukushima plant is of a different design. It doesn’t have the the built in flaws that caused that event to be so horrific!

“It’s Three Mile Island all over again!!!!”.

OK, it looks like it might be headed in that direction – technically. But, it’s not there yet. And, as I write this, there is still some optimism that that can be avoided.

Here is a question few are asking:

How many people died or got ill due to the radiation leaked from TMI?




Nadda. None. Zilch.

The accident at Three Mile Island was in a highly populated area where no one had been evacuated until AFTER the leak of radioactive vapor. The sparsely populated area around Fukushima had been evacuated long before and radiation had escaped.

There are a couple of anti-nuke scientists who claim that there is widespread damage resulting from the TMI accident, but the extensive research and monitoring of people who lived around the Three Mile Island power plant at the time of the accident, and the continued monitoring of those people today, simply does not support their case.

In fact, the only thing that can be proven to have died as a result of the Three Mile Island accident…. was the U. S. nuclear power industry!!!

Here is the map of the epicenter of the quake.


The locations of nuclear power plants in Japan are shown here.


There are several that received the same stressors from the quake as the Fukushima plant, yet came out with no technical problems. Remember, this was an 8.9 quake! For example, the power plant at Onagawa is much closer to the epicenter of yesterdays quake and rode it out without any notable damage**. The Fukushima 1 reactors experiencing problems are among the oldest types in operation in Japan. The structure itself survived the quake just fine as far as anyone can tell. It’s cooling issues that are driving the current crisis. After this is over, new guidelines will be implemented to help avoid a similar occurrence.

On the “dangers” of nuclear power…. Yes, there are dangers to using this kind of technology to produce electricity. Creating solar panels creates some very toxic byproducts that, unlike radioactive waste, does not have a half-life and does not decay over time. Even including the horrors that occurred at Chenyobl, many many more people have died due to conventional fossil fuel power plants than due to accidents at nuclear plants. Google coal death and see what comes up.

If you’re looking at human casualties between fossil fuel power vs nuclear power… nuclear is simply safer.

Rant Off/

PS. As bad as Chenyobl was, they are now planning on giving tours of the site.

**UPDATE:   Since writing this, there has been some issues at the Oganawa plant, but nothing serious as of now.  So far the news of the radiation leak has been sketchy. Will keep an eye out for further developments.

8.9 – Massive Earthquake Off Coast Of Japan.

Share Button

God… That’s a MASSIVE QUAKE!!!!…

Yet, it didn’t do nearly as much damage as you would expect from an 8.9. The hypocenter was pretty shallow, only 15 miles below ground, but at 80 mile from the nearest city, considering its size of the quake, it was far enough away that it did not do a great amount of damage.

Here is the shake map from the USGS Web Site.


To give you an idea of the power of this quake, here is the shake map from one of the foreshocks to this massive quake’


At 7.2, this was a very large quake. But the 8.9 was THAT much bigger!

Then comes the Tsunami… SHIT! I’m watching the vid in disbelief. And look at the maps above. That is A LOT of coastline that is vulnerable to this Tsunami. Some of the waves have been said to be over 30 feet high! I’m not a religious man, but my prayers go out anyway.

The Tsunami generated 3 to 6 ft waves in Hawaii. That’s good news for the west coast…. With a caveat. The shape and slope of the coast line can either reduce the effect, or amplify it. Though I was studying seismology when I was a geology major, I quit the program (calc buried me) before we covered Tsunamis in dept. So I’m not an expert, but I think we’re OK here on the West Coast.


NOTE – One thing that has always annoyed me about Earthquake news coverage is the focus on where the epicenter is and no mention of the hypocenter and the depth of the original pressure release that triggered the quake. Don’t get me wrong, obviously the focus of the epicenter is important, but so is the depth of the quake. This 8.9 quake is estimated to be 8000 times more powerful 1,100 times more powerful than the recent 6.3 quake that struck New Zeland. Christchurch was right on the epicenter, the spot over where the stress rupture occurred. But equally important was the fact that the Christchurch quake had an extremely shallow hypocenter, that was only 4.34 miles deep (7 km), and the Japan quake was 15 miles, or 24.4 km below the Earth.

Here is a write-up of a 5.3 New Zealand quake that occurred in January of this year.

This is an flash update on the following recent earthquake :

M 5.3 – Rotorua, Taupo area New Zealand

Strong earthquake with a deep hypocenter = harmless, although a lot of people could potentially to feel it. As most are asleep, we predict that only few will have been awakened by the earthquake shaking. The earthquake epicenter (not important for this kind of quake) was near highway 1 in a very active thermal area. A similar earthquake occurred a couple of weeks ago in the same area, also without damage or injuries.
35 km (25 miles) SW of Rotorua, New Zealand and 24 km NW Taupo (pop 22,469)

Magnitude : 5.3
Local time at epicenter : January 28, 2011 at 03:02:46 AM at epicenter
Depth (Hypocenter) : 154 km

And here is a write-up of the 6.8 quake that rocked the Puget Sound in Febuary 2001:

When the Puget Sound region of Washington state was jolted from its morning routine on Feb. 28 by a magnitude 6.8 Earthquake, the damage was noticeably less severe than might have been expected from such a quake, say scientists at the NSF-funded Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC) in Los Angeles. This event, named the Nisqually earthquake, for a river delta near its epicenter, was actually larger than the devastating 1994 Northridge
earthquake in California, a magnitude 6.7 quake that became the most costly natural disaster in U.S. history.

Was the Seattle area better prepared for a major earthquake than Los Angeles? Or was the discrepancy a result of differences in the earthquakes themselves?

SCEC geologists say it is the latter. They believe much of the difference between the Nisqually and the Northridge quakes can be attributed to the Nisqually earthquake’s location — not that of its epicenter, but that of its depth, or hypocenter. The Northridge quake had a hypocentral depth of 11 miles, deep for a California earthquake, but shallow for other regions. Nisqually’s depth was some 33 miles, making its center farther away from structures than at Northridge, explaining the differences in the two quakes’ effects.

During the Japanese quake, the movement of the shallow fault line is what caused the great Tsunami. If it would have been a deeper hypocenter, maybe it wouldn’t have been so huge and devastating.

Here is some more info concerning this topic.

As long as I’m getting critical of news coverage of Earthquakes, I might as well rehash the “Temblor” controversy. 🙂