| Author | Message | ||
     Aesquire |
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2023/09/new -discoveries-in-climate-science.php Gee, when we use the Cult's data, the answers are all wrong. Huh. | ||
| Tpehak |
It is so ironical those climate activists tried to stop those beople heading to Burning Man from getting in to the disaster but they refused to stop and now they pay the price. (Message edited by TPEHAK on September 04, 2023) | ||
| Hootowl |
You have up to 3 percent neanderthal dna. You are 97 percent human. So is the Australian. You do not have more in common with the neanderthal. | ||
| Aesquire |
Up to 3%? I'll take your word for it. But if, as current theory is true, the Aussie Aborigines are the oldest human group, then I really wonder if they have any Neanderthal DNA? Ditto other Asian populations. I base this pure speculation on the idea that Neanderthals were a European group and If your ancestors never passed through, followed the route from Africa along the Indian Ocean East, then you'd be "pure cro-magnon"? & On speculation that the native American people were straight cro-magnon. https://www.thoughtco.com/we-dont-call-them-cro-ma gnon-170738 I accept, provisionally, and with reservations, the theory of genetic drift over time. But I'm not convinced that the assumption of a smooth transition is correct, that you can use the change in genes like a calender/clock. Many things are not straight forward progress, but have big jumps in rate of change. For example mammals were mostly small shrew like critters in the age of dinosaurs, and exploded in variety when the ( still disputed in details ) Catastrophe of Climate Change wiped the big "lizards" out. Celestial impacts, Solar variability, surges in vulcanism, Ice Ages and invasive species, ( like, oh, us ) caused massive sudden change that doesn't fit the orderly progression assumed by some. Speaking of disorderly progression. https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2023/09/the -daily-chart-a-tale-of-two-storms.php The huge increase in people who migrated to storm prone areas simply causes a huge increase in storm related deaths. That's assuming other factors don't change. So looking at Florida and Bangladesh, we see in both places a big increase in population of low lying near Sea Level lands. In Florida there is a much higher level of infrastructure built fairly recently to evacuate, communicate, and give relief from inevitable storm damage. Despite thousands of years of civilization in Bangladesh, they lack that modern improvement in coastal safety. It's not a great comparison, Florida's beaches are not like the flat river delta area of Bangladesh, colonialism affected the locals very differently, the religious wars haven't massacred Floridians, yet, and the recent mass migrations distributed people very different. In Florida the wealthier live on the coasts, while in Bangladesh the poorest live on the Delta. Not so many luxury condos in the Bangladeshi areas less than 3 meters above the Sea. So storms in Florida cause Billion$ in damage and fairly few casualties. But in Bangladesh... | ||
| Hootowl |
I disagree that the original Australians are the oldest group. Humanity, by all accounts, originated in Africa. The only people that have been found to not have neanderthal DNA are black Africans whose ancestors never left Africa. Some black Africans have ancestors who migrated up into Asia, and back. Those folks have neanderthal DNA. There are very small pockets of 100 percent humans still in Africa. Everyone else, including native Australians, have neanderthal DNA. | ||
| Hootowl |
Do not take my word for it. The newest estimates are up to 4 percent. Search for neanderthal dna in humans. You may find it illuminating. | ||
| Aesquire |
https://instapundit.com/604169/ Planet on the far side of the sun... I remember this movie, great miniature work, really bad acting, and a nifty, if silly, premise. https://astrobiology.nasa.gov/news/caltech-researc hers-find-evidence-of-a-real-ninth-planet/ | ||
| Hootowl |
quote: A good theory should not only explain things that you set out to explain. It should hopefully explain things that you did not set out to explain and make predictions that are testable Wow. A real scientist. The climate folks should take note. | ||
| Aesquire |
Almost a pity there's no like button for that post.  I wrote and deleted a long post on the Neanderthal issue. Basically, either the definition that different Species can't have children is wrong, or Neanderthals weren't a different species. Or I don't understand some subtle aspect of biology that they changed in the books when I wasn't looking. That last is almost certain.  What do you think? I do enjoy the Lost Civilization book writer interviews, since the Establishment Scientists get pretty darn dogmatic about not accepting anything new. I'm also aware that Atlantis was a creation of a Greek writer who wasn't known for subtle propaganda or never making anything up. And most of the "documentaries" about Lost Civilizations lean on some really stupid ideas that I know personally just aren't so. I'm not going to speculate on the Age of the Sphinx, since it's been re-carved and re-built multiple times over the years, with rude tourists like Napoleon shooting at it with cannon and carving their names in it. But I will point out that there's a real tendency to assume things were always as they are today, which is almost never true. Or entirely true. And so many times in history, you've got generations of peasants living in the shadow of massive constructions from an earlier civilization and they have no idea how they were made. Not entire villages full of idiots, but between the Romans building that aqueduct, and the European peasant scratching out a living nearby, there were wars, plagues, mass migrations... and at least one religious cult who were utterly convinced of the wickedness of the Old Empire and tried to erase every trace of literature that offended them. Papyrus and paper is far easier to burn than concrete. And inevitably, those people don't actually read the books they burn. So the porn gets thrown into the bonfire with the medical texts and the math book explaining how to calculate loads on a bridge. So much lost porn.... | ||
| Hootowl |
Neanderthals were hominids, just as we are. They evolved from the same stock that would eventually breed homo sapien sapiens. It makes sense that they would be able to interbreed with humans. | ||
| Aesquire |
Like Wolf & German Shepherd Dog mixes? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subspecies_of_Cani s_lupus https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subspecies https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species So according to Wiki, things were fine and the boxes neatly ordered until some dude named Darwin messed it all up by noticing some birds. Also to answer my previous question, Neanderthals are of our species, just a subspecies variant. Probably. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal So I was operating on a false assumption, based either on poor reading skill or lousy writing by a popularizer of science. I'll take Full Blame since their simplified version might be justified by really bad educational policy. Of interest! In the above wiki article it is speculated that Neanderthals split off 800,000 years ago which lines up too neatly with an apocalyptic event that reduced the total number of humans to near extinction levels and radically reduced genetic diversity. And you thought 2023 sucked! | ||
| Aesquire |
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_taxonomy And apparently we don't use subspecies references as race divisions anymore because it makes people angry. Totally understandable. Science changing because of new facts? That is Good. Changing ( or not changing ) because it causes temper tantrums? I suppose if it makes some person with an underabundance of self worth feel better, it's worth making Trillion dollar policy choices that might render civilization extinct... Maybe. | ||
| Hootowl |
Anthropologists (real ones, not social) will tell you that there are three types of humans: Caucasoid, Negroid, and Mongoloid. Are those subspecies? No idea. | ||
| Aesquire |
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2023/09/how -to-get-published-on-climate.php | ||
| Aesquire |
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/restoring-ameri ca/fairness-justice/smoking-gun-documents-can-help -rein-in-bidens-climate-lawlessness | ||
| Aesquire |
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2023/09/win d-energy-will-never-be-affordable.php Apparently even slave labor can't make wind energy profitable. I also point out that natural gas isn't the Only source of thermal fuel to make steam in the UK, they buy wood from America to burn, too. The amount of diesel to run the freighters crossing the Atlantic to bring wood to burn in the UK seems unlikely to be more efficient that just burning the oil itself to make electricity. | ||
| Aesquire |
https://theconversation.com/british-power-stations -are-burning-wood-from-us-forests-to-meet-renewabl es-targets-54969 that this insanity is to meet EU dictates makes perfect sense. https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/biomass/wood-a nd-wood-waste.php https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/aug/1 1/burning-imported-wood-in-drax-power-plant-doesnt -make-sense-says-kwarteng hypothetically, the UK could stop buying American wood and cost rich donors a lot of profits! Fortunately, we have a historical precedence on forcing a foreign nation to buy plant derived products at gun point, the Chinese Opium Wars, where the British Empire forced China to take opium in trade for tea. See also the Chinese Fentanyl Revenge for the Opium Wars in the US. But we aren't going to force England to buy wood at gunpoint. They don't make anything we really want except Triumphs. ( Sarcasm based on real history! ) | ||
| Aesquire |
https://www.motortrend.com/reviews/2022-rivian-r1t -launch-edition-yearlong-review-update-13-towing/ I'm still happy choosing a hybrid vs. Electric for my primary vehicle. I'm far too impulsive to plan stops with an app etc. If I decide to go to Boston at 11pm from my Sister's in Syracuse ( after a 120 mile drive ) then I just go. I'm not getting breakfast in Boston with an electric doing that. Mother's Prius Prime has only seen a gas station twice the entire time she's had it, and both times were a deliberate choice by me to burn up old gas and get fresh, months of driving her to appointments and shopping. And if she wants to go to Nebraska tomorrow, I can put the charger in the back, and just go. The 3 factors that make electric cars less easy haven't changed. Infrastructure, range, charge times. Infrastructure is improving. It'll be decades before you can find a charger as easy as a gas station, but gas stations took decades to spread, too. ( before most drivers lifetimes, so you never think about it ) Infrastructure is soon to be changed, with some old sites going away, as they finally settled on a charging system interface, sorta, almost. Soon, really, but there will be lawsuits about the plug and communication technology. Some people who have cars that use an obsoleted tech will be unhappy. But hey, how's Windows XP working on your home gaming & entertainment computer? Range is a slowly moving/improving issue, quite depending upon money too. The difference between, say, different trim/battery/motors levels in a Ford E-stang is just like my in progress e-bike project, choice, perceived needs, and money. We'll know when the Next Battery they promise is ready when you can buy it. Don't hold your breath. I'll wait until I can afford it after initially high prices, but heck yeah, I'll upgrade the e-pedal toys to lose weight. Charge times will also improve with infrastructure improvements and eventually new battery types. But that's going to be a problem, ( see above article ) for a while, and even more important, is the politics of Energy. That's been the primary subject here, so... More juice needed, more juice production needed, basic math. And for entertaining discussion... WILD HOPE IT'S NOT TRUE, CONSPIRACY THEORY, that I'm inventing on the spot. I want full Cassandra credit for premonition powers, and will accept zero blame, if I'm wrong, or terrifyingly right! There may be Race Chargers Equity Riots. Maybe not in 2024, but '26 there will be enough E-cars that those exploiting class envy riots for political reasons will have a new Higher Cause, that will be, easily argued with selective facts. The disparity between freeway and wealthy suburb charger availability and inner city, is real. And percentage by population! Statistics lie real good, but it helps if you can use truth/legit numbers to prop it up. That it's a combination of factors will become taboo hate speech. Organized riots by, presumably, the Usual Suspects, will follow, and the most shown meme will be the burning charger lot, where the paid agitator eco terrorists commit spectacular arson. End prediction! Have fun arguing that is unlikely. | ||
| Aesquire |
| ||
| Aesquire |
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2023/09/roa d-trip-3.php Just in case I have not been clear. If you want an E-car, E-bike, or any E-toy, great! Tell us about it. There's even a really nice little kit plane that now has a sub kit to replace the VW derived ( big dune buggy racing ) engine with a motor mount and hack package for a Zero motorcycle. ( you provide the bike and follow instructions on disassembly ) Range is pretty short, but it's a motorglider, so the builders Expect to use the motor to climb up and look for lift, and maybe get them back home when the evening lull happens. Perfect application for electric. But the government mandating electric vehicles because of a mega scam that might now have stolen more wealth than the Catholic Church over 2000 years, and is inspired by the most murderous cult in human history? Yeah, no. Insert curses of your choice. I have 2 quick thoughts on the above article. 3 actually. 1. Just 20 years ago a cross country with electric vehicles would have been far slower and you might get kicked out of the motel for stealing power. Running extension cord to your car? At least you might be able to buy back your charger on Ebay. 2. That the Energy Czar's Entourage had trouble planning a road trip tells you how incompetent they really are. See cliche about governments and wet dreams. 3. You steal my place in line and lay "don't You know who I am?" on me & I'm already waiting patiently and courteously? I'm calling your plates in to the State Police in the surrounding 500 miles with a frantic warning of a gang smoking crack and waving Ak-47s out the windows. On a phone I get from the nearest gas station. For a week. | ||
| Aesquire |
As a geek, nerd, tech buff, pick any, I like tanks and battleships, as the biggest, most advanced, complex, technology things humans made, that moved. Sure, a modern supertanker is bigger than Yamato, or Iowa class battleships, but they're bulk haulers, so other than size, and we're talking the biggest diesels on Earth, they just aren't "cool" in an adolescent view. ( and I not only don't claim to have grown up, I flatly deny it. Old, yes, dangit, but mature?! Ha! ) I like the British Tank Museum and The Chieftain and Cone etc. There's politics and propaganda to be considered in evaluating, or just opinionating, on tanks, especially. There's an ongoing argument about the Sherman & Tiger... It's no different with modern tanks. Plus the current Russia-Ukraine war with it's dubious propaganda. Is the Tank Dead? The Chieftain says no. It's still the biggest power projection tool. I'm aware that there has been an ongoing "battle" between armor and weapons since the first wicker shield and the club. I will opine that the T-14 Armata is as ground breaking a design as the Swedish S-tank. The unmanned autoloading turret and a more screen centric sensor/crew vision systems will be "copied" by other countries, which have been working on them for years. But not yet adopted in service. Novelist David Drake, in his Hammer's Slammers series, has a fictional future tank that uses a sophisticated multi camera vision system with computer assist, that gives better vision ( zoom, multi spectral ) than the naked eye, but it's a 2 man tank and the gunner/commander still sits in the turret, and often has his head out, for psychological and plot reasons. | ||
| Aesquire |
Btw, Drake's fictional tanks use fusion powered ground effect cushions and handwavium weapons, which was the Veteran Author's way of improving/extrapolation from Vietnam experience in a tank unit. I'm the triad of Mobility, Armor, Weapons, the first was to get rid of the backbreaking to maintain tracks. The Second is advanced stuff that is pretty good, but the third still can kill anything it ranges on. Which is imho, how the armor/weapons balance will always work out. Build better armor, they just make nastier guns. That pendulum has swung for aeons. | ||
| Tpehak |
Tanks are obsolete in the modern warfare. The modern drones Russia uses pop those modern western tanks like your granny pops pills. | ||
| Hootowl |
Tanks only work if you have air superiority. And if you have that, what is point of a tank? A tank is simply a target to an aircraft. | ||
| Aesquire |
A F-16 can't do what a tank can. Both can be blown away with the right weapons. And you don't hold territory until you put a 19 year old with a rifle on it. A teen conscript with a T-55 holds territory too. A F-22 can't. And Joe* just gave billion$ to the Murderous Mullahs to build drones for Putin. So Putin can support the teen conscript Russian with a rifle in Ukraine, and later Poland, Paris, and Brussels. | ||
| Tpehak |
But that's Putin himself holds the territory isn't it? | ||
| Aesquire |
Nope. Putin is in a bunker hiding. He sends other's to murder and die for him. It's always been the grunt on the ground that determines the flag flown. If there isn't a teen with a M-16, or AK-74, or Mosin-Nagant, or spear, standing guard on the entrance to the village, and the village market, it's not your territory. | ||
| Aesquire |
If robots replace the teen with a rifle, then it's cyber warriors that determines who's robot it is. Teens with consoles guarded by teens with rifles. | ||
| Tpehak |
I was always under impression that Putin himself freed all those eastern republics in Ukraine from the Ukrainian nazi and now you are telling me those were other people. Now I am wondering who are those people? (Message edited by TPEHAK on September 12, 2023) | ||
| Hootowl |
A tank cannot do anything with an F-16 operating in uncontested airspace painting it with a laser. Not saying you do not need troops, I am saying tanks are useless in modern warfare. An enemy tank is easily destroyed if you have air superiority. If you do not have that, you would not send in your own tanks until you do (so they do not get destroyed). And if you do have air superiority, you would mop up all the enemy tanks before sending in ground forces. The bulk of US ground forces are not tanks for this very reason. Heavy, inefficient, expensive, and not needed - all their potential targets have already been destroyed. |
