Random Nuclear Strikes

Stand against radical freaks.

Just to show I don’t discriminate (I’m with Han, I think all religions are hokey) , a joke:

Ezra Epstein ran a very successful business making nails.  When he retired, he handed the reins of  company over to his Son-in-Law, Hershal, and retired from New York to Florida.  While in Florida, he made sure to get his daily copy of The New York Times, and one day, he sees a full page ad showing Jesus Christ hanging on the Cross with the tagline, “They Used Epstein Nails.”

Well, Ezra was incensed and called Hershal up straight away!  “Boy,” he said, “you can’t run an ad like that, change it right away!”  “Sure thing, I’ll get it fixed, don’t you worry.”, Hershal replied.

The next week, Ezra opened the paper to see another full page ad, this one showing Jesus laying on the ground in a heap in front of the Cross with 3 Roman soldiers looking worried, and the tagline read, “They didn’t use Epstein Nails.”

Read this post about the capture of the The National Academies by special interests.

Gonna have to see if I can get my hands on the source data, but his conclusions are not out there.

The London School of Economics & Political Science released a paper discussing the current failure of policy to effect carbon emissions reduction across the world, and a better way to effect these changes.  Key points (emphasis mine):

The crash of 2009 presents an immense opportunity to set climate policy free to fly at last. The principal motivation and purpose of this Paper is to explain and to advance this opportunity. To do so involves understanding and accepting a startling proposition. It is now plain that it is not possible to have a ‘climate policy’ that has emissions reductions as the all encompassing goal. However, there are many other reasons why the decarbonisation of the global economy is highly desirable. Therefore, the Paper advocates a radical reframing – an inverting – of approach: accepting that decarbonisation will only be achieved successfully as a benefit contingent upon other goals which are politically attractive and relentlessly pragmatic.

The Paper therefore proposes that the organising principle of our effort should be the raising up of human dignity via three overarching objectives: ensuring energy access for all; ensuring that we develop in a manner that does not undermine the essential functioning of the Earth system; ensuring that our societies are adequately equipped to withstand the risks and dangers that come from all the vagaries of climate, whatever their cause may be.

It explains radical and practical ways to reduce non-CO2 human forcing of climate. It argues that improved climate risk management is a valid policy goal, and is not simply congruent with carbon policy. It explains the political prerequisite of energy efficiency strategies as a first step and documents how this can achieve real emissions reductions. But, above all, it emphasises the primacy of accelerating decarbonisation of energy supply. This calls for very substantially increased investment in innovation in non-carbon energy sources in order to diversify energy supply technologies. The ultimate goal of doing this is to develop non-carbon energy supplies at unsubsidised costs less than those using fossil fuels. The Hartwell Paper advocates funding this work by low hypothecated (dedicated) carbon taxes. It opens discussion on how to channel such money productively.

To reframe the climate issue around matters of human dignity is not just noble or necessary. It is also likely to be more effective than the approach of framing around human sinfulness –which has failed and will continue to fail.“

These are concepts environmentalists just don’t get.  They operate under the idea that government can just force things to change.

The car can do it for you

This is so cool!