Sunday, March 06, 2011

Interesting Bar Conversation

I like having my two beer allotment when I am driving at a non-chain lounge, cafe, or bar, especially one that makes its own beer. I ended up at a pub at the Colony Mill, Keene, New Hampshire.

I tried Chocolate Stout beer, after making fun of the concept calling the beer adulterated and "fu fu". After the insistence of the bartender that I should at least try it, before making fun of it, I did. There was no noticeable taste of Chocolate, but there wasn't the noticeable smoky taste of a true stout either. I love Murphy's Stout.

I talked with a retired middle school teacher on a number of subjects. We talked about government workers unions, Kentucky, Martial Law declared during the race riots of 1968, the burning of sulfur rich coal, the TVA, the WWW, WPA, Tennessee, Hoover Dam, waterfall driven power generation, nuclear power, nuclear bombs, tomato gardens, climate change, the fall of the Soviet Union wall, Germany, Lithuania, Poland, Latvia, Estonia, Israel, his teaching there two years, gaseous diffusion for uranium enrichment, government intrusion into one's life, now vs. before, the unrest in Egypt and "how we let that leader keep his palace and some cash", my talking about national sovereignty and not being an intrusive overbearing world power police state, about the Depression era bridge project on the Merrit Parkway in Connecticut, out of work architects, restoration, acid rain in New England because Kentucky coal burning electric plants had their stacks built beyond 1500 feet to keep the corn and other farmer crops from being killed by the sulfur rich coal, and many other subjects.

Great amounts of power were needed for the centrifuges and for gaseous diffusion to make nuclear bombs. Was part of the recovery in part fueled by the nuclear arms race, not a government policy that was supposedly meant to put citizens to work?

I think there are too many government workers, making too much money, and are too eager to support a police state that has allowed them to live so high on the hog that they've sold their souls.

But, on a positive note, I learned from a teacher in a half hour, even though I didn't agree with all of his political opinions.

One of the last times I was at the Colony Mill, I hung out with Ken Burns of PBS documentary fame. We talked about how to get financing and distributing of documentaries once they are finished. Ken asked me to give him a call if I needed any more advice. I shot the below video then:

Ken Burns book signing 12-19-09

Text with video:

Uploaded by on Dec 20, 2009

Dayton Duncan and Ken Burns came to the Colony Mill Outlet Mall in Keene, New Hampshire, to the Toadstool Bookstore. Global Warming, nature, the environment, the beauty of US national parks, documentary film making, upcoming projects, Vietnam project, the American Civil War, and much more was discussed.

More information:

Ken Burns unedited 12-19-09

Text with video:

Uploaded by on Dec 20, 2009

Dayton Duncan and documentary film producer Ken Burns talk about their book, "The National Parks" at a book signing at the The Toadstool Book Store, Colony Mill, Keene, New Hampshire.

More information:

* * * *

[click here] for:

Dumbing Down of America, Being told what to think

* * * *

This blogger's current bitch:

* * * *

There are many people seeing their true reflection in the mirror after viewing the below post. Many are still in denial. Many are considering how to better deal with their version of a lunatic acquaintance, co-worker, or family relation.

[click here] for:

Dealing with a Family Lunatic

* * * *

Should former Connecticut US Senator Chris Dodd be hung for treason for the further ripping off of American taxpayers, being a bankster enabler, for taking bribes from the corporate banking elite, and for being a treasonous asshole?

[click here] for:
State Martial Law US Constitution

Did the Banks really write the "Banking Legislation"?

* * * *
* * * *

Corbett Report Interviews Keelan On 7/7 London Bombings - March 5th 2011

Text with video:

Uploaded by on Mar 5, 2011

James Corbett of interviews Keelan Balderson of WideShut about the 7/7 London Bombings, the recent inquest, the network of intelligence assets surrounding the alleged bombers and some of the anomolies that still need answering about that tragic day.

* * * *

The below re-posted from [here]

Unscientific hype about the flooding risks from climate change will cost us all dear

The warmists have sound financial grounds for hyping the dangers of flooding posed by climate change, writes Christopher Booker

After Hurricane Katrina flooded New Orleans, the price of insurance soared

As the great global warming scare continues to crumble, attention focuses on all those groups that have a huge interest in keeping it alive. Governments look on it as an excuse to raise billions of pounds in taxes. Wind farm developers make fortunes from the hidden subsidies we pay through our electricity bills. A vast academic industry receives more billions for concocting the bogus science that underpins the scare. Carbon traders hope to make billions from corrupt schemes based on buying and selling the right to emit CO2. But no financial interest stands to make more from exaggerating the risks of climate change than the re-insurance industry, which charges retail insurers for “catastrophe cover”, paid for by all of us through our premiums.

An insight into this was given by a paper published by Nature on February 17, which claimed to show for the first time how man-made climate change greatly increases the risk of flood damage. Among the eight authors of the paper are two of the most influential scientists at the heart of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Prof Peter Stott of the UK Met Office’s Hadley Centre and Dr Myles Allen, head of Oxford’s Climate Dynamics Group. Two of their co-authors are from Risk Management Solutions (RMS), a California-based firm which is the world leader in advising the insurance industry on climate change.

The study, based entirely on computer models, focused on the exceptional flooding that took place in England and Wales in the autumn of 2000. Its conclusion – that climate change could increase the chance of flooding by up to 90 per cent – was widely publicised, without questioning, by all the usual media cheerleaders for global warming, led by the BBC’s Richard Black (“Climate change increases flood risk, researchers say”).

When less partisan observers examined the paper, however, they were astonished. Although Nature has long been a leading propagandist for man-made climate change, this example seemed truly bizarre. Why had this strangely opaque study been based solely on the results of a series of computer models – mainly provided by the Hadley Centre and RMS – and not on any historical data about rainfall and river flows?

The Met Office’s own records show no upward trend in UK rainfall between 1961 and 2004. Certainly autumn 2000 showed an unusual rainfall maximum, but it was exceeded in 1930. The graph between then and 2010 shows no significant upward trend. While 2000 may have seen a lot of rain, 1768 and 1872 were even wetter. In the real world, the data show no evidence of an increase in UK rainfall at all. Any idea that there is one seemed to be entirely an artefact of the computer models.

On Friday came the fullest and most expert dissection of the Nature paper so far, published on the Watts Up With That website by Willis Eschenbach, a very experienced computer modeller. His findings are devastating. After detailed analysis of the study’s multiple flaws, he sums up by accusing Nature of “trying to pass off the end-result of a long daisy-chain of specifically selected, untested, unverified, un-investigated computer models as valid, falsifiable, peer-reviewed science”.

His conclusion is worth quoting at some length: “When your results represent the output of four computer models, fed into a fifth computer model, whose output goes to a sixth computer model, which is calibrated against a seventh computer model, and then your results are compared to a series of different results from the fifth computer model, but run with different parameters, in order to show that flood risks have increased from greenhouse gases…” you cannot pretend that this is “a valid representation of reality”, let alone “a sufficiently accurate representation of reality to guide our future actions”.

This is precisely why the Nature study is of such significance – because it will undoubtedly be used to guide future actions, which will in one way or another impact on all our lives.

For a start, consider the players in this drama. Prof Stott and Dr Allen have long been among the most influential scientists in the world in stoking up climate alarmism. A famous analysis by John McClean showed that they played a key part in compiling the single most important chapter in the IPCC’s last report, in 2007. The chapter, entitled “Understanding and attributing climate change”, cited many more papers by them than anyone else. They have now been appointed as lead authors of the relevant chapter in the next IPCC report, “Detection and attribution of climate change”, which will guide the actions of governments all over the world.

As for their two colleagues from Risk Management Solutions, this is not the first time that this leading adviser to the world’s re-insurance industry has been involved in a controversial bid to heighten alarm over the consequences of climate change.

In October 2005, in the wake of the Hurricane Katrina disaster, RMS held a meeting in Bermuda with four hurricane specialists, all of the alarmist persuasion, to quiz them as to how they thought hurricane activity was likely to be affected between 2006 and 2010, thanks to climate change, and how this would impact on the southern United States, notably Florida. On the basis of this meeting, RMS advised the re-insurers that the risk of hurricane damage over the next four years was hugely increased. The companies found that their reserves were $82 billion short of what they might be expected to pay. Premiums, particularly in Florida, accordingly rocketed upwards.

Under the heading “The $82 billion prediction”, the details of this episode are chronicled on his blog by Dr Roger Pielke Jr, who in 2008 advised RMS that the methodology on which it relied was so biased that “a group of monkeys would have arrived at the exact same results”. Dr Pielke, an expert in environmental impacts, recently published a chart showing how, although the RMS prediction for hurricane damage between 2006 and 2010 was a third higher than the historical average, the actual cost proved to be well under half the average figure. But, thanks to RMS, the insurance industry had made billions from higher premiums.

In 2008, following the disastrous floods of summer 2007, that vociferous climate alarmist Bob Ward, now at the Grantham Institute but then a director of RMS, called for the British government to work more closely with the insurance industry “to devise mutually beneficial strategies for dealing with flood risks”. We understand how working with RMS might be beneficial to the insurance industry. But whether, in light of the Nature study, the Government would find it beneficial is another matter – never mind the rest of us, as we are asked to pay ever higher insurance premiums, based not least on the findings of those RMS computer models.

I shall have to leave until next week consideration of two remarkable developments in the ongoing scandal of the unjustified snatching of children by social workers. On Monday, Lord Justice Thorpe said he was “aghast” at a case in which the social workers’ removal of three children had been upheld by a judge after a hearing that lasted only 15 minutes and at which the parents were not allowed to speak. He ordered the family to be reunited. As I regularly report, however, similarly shocking cases come to light every week. Meanwhile our Children’s Minister, Tim Loughton, says he is “contemplating some kind of ombudsman system” to investigate the “small number of cases which go horribly wrong”, where courts uphold the snatching of children without reason. I welcome this as tacit recognition of the point I have been trying to make here for months. May I also say how stunned I am by the generosity of our readers’ response to my appeal on behalf of “Pex”, the Fijian veteran of the British Army threatened with deportation. Again, I shall update next week.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Hit Counter