28 February 2007

This is a caption from a silly article on global warming:
"At a protest near the U.S. embassy in London in November 2006 asking world leaders to act urgently to cap global warming at 2oC or less."
OK, does anyone else consider this as ludicrous as I do? Asking politicians to act to set a cap on global warming at no more than 2 degrees Centigrade? What are they going to do, pass a law? The Earth then is contractually bound to keep it global warming below that "cap"? Otherwise, I tell you what, we'll sue the Earth's pants off. We passed a LAW! Suck on that, Sitwell!

I know what they are saying. Act now, sign Kyoto, install a catalytic converter on Al Gore's mouth, and somehow magically that will cap the warming to 2 degrees. I get it. But it is so, so dumb. Why are these silly sods so wrapped up in the belief that government will save them? I mean, even taking all the religious tenets of the Church of Warmingism for granted, still, the idea that some law, even adherence to that law, will "cap" warming is silly.

Moving on!

I just outted myself as a firearms enthusiast (we prefer that to the pejorative "gun legume") to a University English writing class...well, perhaps I didn't come out and say as much, but when a guy starts answering technical questions posed by the professor ("who invented the AK-47?"), and starts nitpicking technical details central to his argument that the AK-47 is evil whereas somehow bolt-action rifles are good, you're marked. Oh well! Let them dismiss the shooting sports, leaves more ammunition for me!

Not to delve into the delights of analyzing hippie Christian movements, but sometimes, upon reflecting on the vast waves of postmodern horsedump relentlessly pounding away at the shores of reason, I can understand the sentiment behind Cartman's prayer to the Sea People:

"Only three more hours, sea people. Only three more hours and you can take me away from this crappy goddamn planet full of hippies."

14 February 2007

It is sad and silly how much I love guns. I was gazing lovingly at my Mauser 24/47 and realized I have the same silly fondness for these machines of accurized lead projection that I used to have moreso for my guitars. Men and their toys, I guess.

But throwing deep introspection and all that to the wind, let's dive right in the shallow end...I went to the range on Saturday and got to shot my little Yugoslavian arm cannon. I was using Greek surplus ammo, 180gr FMJ, non-corrosive primers. It was an accurate little SOB, despite the freaking cold harming my ability to shoot and the horrendously designed sights. Now...full disclosure...I'm not an experienced rifle shooter. So it pains me a bit to say it, but I started out at only 60 feet. That's 20 yards...pistol range, really. But at 60 feet I was getting 1" groups, and most people would be hardpressed to even see a 1" group at 60 feet. I'll try longer range shooting once I get out in warmer weather again. I really need a scope to do that sort of shooting, and that would necessitate a different gun. Maybe a Mosin Nagant...they are cheap enough! A good set of modern optics on a Mosin M91/30 would satisfy my nerdy military surplus obsession while also giving me a "reach out and touch someone" sort of rifle. Ahhh, what fun.

05 February 2007

I am so sick of this global warming garbage. It is BS.

I'm not going to play scientist and start citing figures...there are enough actual scientists who do that on both sides, not to mention scores of ignorant propogandists who pretend they know what they are talking about. The large amounts of evidence refuting the mainstream theory of global warming are out there, no need for me to regurgitate them to you.

But on this issue of consensus. This is what drives me nuts! They say "the debate is over" because a CONSENSUS of scientists agree on something. What is scientific about that? What is this, science by democracy? Everyone gets a vote and majority rules?

Our history is full of scientific consensus. Science has historically been the story of skeptics in the minority challenging the conventional wisdom, or consensus, with new ideas, testing them, and proving them. We didn't take a vote on whether the world was round. Even if we had done so, a majority of scientists voting for "flat" does not change anything...the Earth is still round.

And furthermore, how do the science guys like this one...a majority of people on the Earth believe in the existence of God. So that makes the existence of God a "consensus", and atheists are deniers that should be expelled from public debate. They were probably bought off by Big Oil! Those batty atheists.

Consensus means nothing, affects nothing, does nothing. We don't care about consensus in science any more than people care about consensus in the existence of God. It's just irrelevant! In science, truth matters. Not polling of opinion.

Anticipating some responses, people will say that my opinion doesn't count since I am not a "scientist". Kind of a silly position to take with Algore at the head of the global warming army.

Yes, I'm a skeptic, a denier, a dissident. Unfortunately this does not give me the same orgiastic gratification that it gives the left wing nutters, who pee their pants with glee when they hear the word "dissent".

Here's a good article: