The Hobbit: The Desolation Of Smaug – My Take

It’s been quite a bit of time since I went to the movies. There has been little out recently which I’ve been interested in seeing in the theaters. Despite the big, and sometimes substantive, changes made to The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, as well as what Peter Jackson and company did to the Lord Of The Rings trilogy, I enjoyed the movies. I’ve watched the first Hobbit movie many, many times. Even with the changes, the substance was still there. The main “flavor”, if you will. Excellent. Same with TLOTR.

So, like many, I was excited for the Desolation of Smaug. And I haven’t been this disappointed in a movie since Terminator: Salvation, which I almost walked out on several times. I have never rented the movie, I sure didn’t purchase it, and I do not watch it when it’s on TV. That’s how I felt about TDOS. I suppose I’m in the vast minority of viewers. It’s trending pretty well on Rotten Tomatoes, both for critics and viewers. It was good visually, but not as majestic as the first. It was mostly dreary, which is kinda the scenery in the book. They missed some serious chances with the forest scenes and Lonely Mountain scenes. The acting was excellent, though. That said, I supposed I might have enjoyed it if I had never read the book. It was “based on a book written by J.R.R. Tolkien”, in the sense that someone read the book, created a Cliff Notes version, translated it into ancient Sumerian, described it to their drunk “black sheep of the family” uncle, who translated it back to English, then created an interpretive dance play, which was describe to the cousins of the screen-writers of Desolation who were on caffeine and donuts highs.

We’re not talking “taking liberties” in order to create some extra drama and stuff, folks, we’re talking about people who willfully changed the movie so there’s very little in common with the book besides names and locations. This is possibly one of the worst book-to-film adaptation of all time. It’s right up there with Sleepy Hollow (the only thing in common with the book were the names of the main characters and the location), Logan’s Run, Dune, Eragon, Starship Troopers and The Scarlet Letter, among others, as the worst adaptations.

Slight spoilers below the fold

Read More »

Read: The Hobbit: The Desolation Of Smaug – My Take »

Something Nice For Trish

I may not always respond in the comments, but I do read them. Here’s one of the best Christmas songs, by Nat King Cole

OK, that was more funny than nice. Awesome Christmas stuff below the fold

Read More »

Read: Something Nice For Trish »

If All You See…

…is a flooded hot world at Christmas-time, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Scared Monkeys, with a post on how well Fox News is doing in the ratings war.

Read: If All You See… »

Reddit Bans Climate Realists

Who’s shocked?

Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers. Why don’t all newspapers do the same?

That’s the headline at Grist, which, unshockingly, takes the typical fascist route in wanting to shut down all debate that disagrees. Whether it was written by the writer of the article, Nathan Allen (who is a “scientist” and moderator at Reddit), is unknown

The forum, known as /r/science, provides a digital space for discussions about recent, peer-reviewed scientific publications. This puts us (along with /r/AskScience) on the front line of the science-public interface. On our little page, scientists and nonscientists can connect through discussions on everything from subatomic particles to interstellar astrophysics. (snip)

Some issues, however, are particularly contentious. While evolution and vaccines do have their detractors, no topic consistently evokes such rude, uninformed, and outspoken opinions as climate change.

Instead of the reasoned and civil conversations that arise in most threads, when it came to climate change the comment sections became a battleground. Rather than making thoughtful arguments based on peer-reviewed science to refute man-made climate change, contrarians immediately resorted to aggressive behaviors. On one side, deniers accused any of the hard-working scientists whose research supported and furthered our understanding of man-made climate change of being bought by “Big Green.” On the other side, deniers were frequently insulted and accused of being paid to comment on reddit by “Big Oil.”

So, obviously, Reddit has banned….the “deniers”, rather than the “hard-working scientists”. Anyhow, most of the article is whiny, simply highlighting that Warmists cannot stand up to people questioning them with facts and reality, which is the norm. And questioning of these “hard-working scientists” is deemed “trolling”.

As a scientist myself, it became clear to me that the contrarians were not capable of providing the science to support their “skepticism” on climate change.

A scientists, huh?

When 97 percent of climate scientists agree that man is changing the climate, we would hope the comments would at least acknowledge if not reflect such widespread consensus. Since that was not the case, we needed more than just an ad hoc approach to correct the situation.

If you’re going to mention “consensus”, you aren’t practicing science. Furthermore, that 97% meme has been fully discredited many, many times.

As a site, reddit is passionately dedicated to free speech..

Because they believe in “free speech”, they’ll ban any dissenters.

So if a half-dozen volunteers can keep a page with more than 4 million users from being a microphone for the antiscientific, is it too much to ask for newspapers to police their own editorial pages as proficiently?

In other words, Warmists love free speech and freedom of the press so much that they want to ban any discourse that diverges from the official cult doctrine.

Read: Reddit Bans Climate Realists »

Bummer: 8 Ways “Climate Change” Is Ruining Christmas

There is a 9th: having to listen to Warmists whine about Hotcoldwetdry ruining Christmas as they drive around in fossil fueled vehicles. Continuing the 25 Days Of Climate Christmas

8 Ways Climate Change Is Wrecking Christmas

Santa and his polar bear neighbors in the North Pole aren’t the only ones dealing with the consequences of climate change. At first glance, the climate change in the United States might seem less dramatic than melting icebergs in the Arctic. But scientists are starting to figure out how greenhouse-gas emissions are beginning to threaten some of the things Americans love the most—including holiday traditions like ham, trees and wine. “Global warming has certainly been observed very robustly, and we understand the processes by which humans are causing it quite well,” explains Noah Diffenbaugh, a Woods Institute for the Environment fellow and assistant professor of earth science at Stanford University. “But there’s also a lot of uncertainty in what will happen in future…what will people do in response to climate change?”

Strange. No statistically significant warming in 17 years. No warming during the 21st Century. 4 out of the past 5 winters, particularly in Europe, Asia, the Middle East, and parts of the Southern Hemisphere being harsh, with a potential harsh 2013-2014 winter being brutal. Most of the Antarctic getting colder. Global temperatures refusing to cooperate with Warmist models. Calls for an ice free Arctic in 2013 failing. In fact, there was a massive rebound in the Arctic this year. Hurricane activity down. Wildfires down. Etc. So on.

Anyhow, here’s what your use of a fossil fueled vehicles (yes, you, I blame you, not me, using Warmist doctrine of it always being the fault of Someone Else) is threatening when it comes to Christmas

  1. Your Holiday Ham – cause corn fields are threatened by drought and flood that never happened before 1980. Except for the massive corn harvests in 2013.
  2. Christmas Trees – because soil composition was always the same before 1980, and there were no pests
  3. Your Favorite Gift – which is supposedly blue jeans, but drought is affecting cotton, and “water shortages could threaten the very existence of the jeans industry” – not too alarmist, eh?
  4. Holiday Cookies – supposedly cookies with peanut butter will suffer, because it was never hot before 1980. This one is really a load of mule fritters, claiming that the harvest was down due to a few degrees of warm weather, when in fact there were record US harvests. And any negative effects were based on cool weather.
  5. California Wine – this might possibly maybe “could” be affected due to warming “projections”. Because, obviously, if the temperature decides it wants to start increasing again, it is against the Laws Of Reality to move production northwards.
  6. Oysters – here’s the ocean acidification argument, all based on “models”
  7. Your Holiday Candy – coco production could be harmed by a simple 1C increase or something in 2050, so “If there’s ever a reason to switch to energy-efficient lightbulbs and drive less, this is it!”
  8. Your Morning Cup o’ Joe – another one of those “this might happen” 20-100 years down the road. Except, there were massive harvests in 2013 and 2012, among others.

So, there you go, Christmas will be ruined sometime in the far flung future.

Read: Bummer: 8 Ways “Climate Change” Is Ruining Christmas »

The Small Business “Affordable” Care Act Bomb To Hit By Next October

Another day, another big concern with Obamacare

(Politico) Think the canceled health policies hurt the Obamacare cause? There’s another political time bomb lurking that could explode not too long before next year’s elections: rate hikes for small businesses.

Like the canceled individual health plans, it’s another example of a tradeoff that health care experts have long known about, as the new rules for health insurance prices create winners and losers. But most Americans won’t become aware of it until some small business employees learn that their premiums are going up because of a law called — oops — the Affordable Care Act.

Some will learn the opposite, that their premiums are going down because of the law. But as we saw with the canceled individual health plans, it’s the losers who will get most of the attention.

And the timing will be terrible for Democrats: A lot of those small businesses will have to start dealing with their new prices in October — just in time for Republicans to make it an issue in their mid-term election campaigns.

As it is, small businesses are already dealing with issues such as moving employees to part-time, reticence to hire, and seeing their plans dropped.

Here’s why: Next year, small business health plans — generally those that cover less than 100 workers — will have to comply with a wide range of new rules, particularly the ones that say employees can’t be charged more if they have health problems. Their premiums will only vary based on their age, whether they have individual or family coverage, what part of the country they live in, and whether they use tobacco — and older workers won’t be able to be charged more than three times as much as younger ones.

Many companies wisely made changes early, allowing them to keep those old plans through 2014

But there will be a cluster of December renewals, industry officials say, and those small businesses will get the first look at their new prices in October — right at the height of an election that’s increasingly being framed as a referendum on the impact of Obamacare.

Obviously, Politico is Very Concerned as to how this will play out for Mr. Obama and Democrats come the midterms. That’s generally what Politico does. And they are concerned that not only will employees, mostly in those small businesses with 51-100 employees, see their premiums and deductibles spike, but that the companies will decide that it is more cost effective to dump the company health insurance offerings and pay the fine/tax/fee. But, hey, don’t worry, I’m sure that Obama will trot out his “nobody’s madder than me” line, and will surely blame Someone Else for daring to ….. bring the issue up.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: The Small Business “Affordable” Care Act Bomb To Hit By Next October »

Climate Anxiety Is A Real Affliction Or Something

It’s probably closer to adults getting anxious over ghosts. After talking about a big rain event in California, 45 years ago, causing her property line to virtually vanish, leaving a big drop down the mountain side for her home, we learn

That led to anxious nights with images in my mind of our house sliding down the slope while I slept. Although our house never went over the edge, those feelings of anxiety sometimes recur during big storms.

Well, yeah, weather can worry some people.

A little research reveals that the worst storm ever recorded in California struck on Christmas Eve of 1861. The rains continued almost nonstop until February 1862, soaking California with almost four times its normal rainfall, and creating enormous brown lakes on the normally dry plains of Southern California. In the Sierra Nevada, the deluges filled rivers, transforming them into raging torrents that swept away entire communities and gold mining settlements in the foothills.

Wait, I thought that never happened before CO2 hit 350ppm?

Then there’s drought, and I recall living through the severest drought on record for many Western states, which happened during the winter of 1976-1977. In California, this period is known as “the year with no rain.”

That would be during the time when everyone was worried about a coming ice age. Anyway, the writer wonders what the “normal climate” of California is (hint, there is no norm)

Today, I am one of a small cohort of earth scientists trying to answer that question, by searching for evidence of past droughts and floods, wildfires, periods of warmth and cold and so on, over the geologic past — the period before humans kept records in the West.

If we step back and view our climate history over a very long time period — say, hundreds to thousands of years — we begin to see the forest for the trees. We can pick out extreme events and how often they occur. This natural history is written not in paper and ink, but in the earth itself, in sediment, stone, trees, ice. Like investigators at a crime scene, we try to piece together seemingly random and unrelated clues about our past climate, and eventually, we begin to see patterns.

And this can make her and others “anxious”, especially when they find that the 1862 flood was not unusual, and happens every 100-200 years, and can be even bigger. That there were at least two prolonged droughts in the Southwest US lasting over a century each, around 650-1,100 years ago (that would be a time which would include both cool and warm periods). Decades long dry periods are normal. Seems like climate likes to do stuff, eh? Wait, here it comes

It’s unsettling to think about the implications of extreme climate events and the reality that global warming may make severe weather much more frequent and even more extreme.

These days, of course, my adult mind can provide diversions, and some people are getting quite skillful at outright denial. This might alleviate unease in the short run, but I know that the best long-term solution is for scientists to prepare everyone living in our Western states for a future of unpredictable and extreme climate change.

It could be that B. Lynn Ingram is refering to natural global warming and climate change, but I seriously doubt it. She has all the data that these things have happened before, but she seems to want to take the Warmist proposition that “climate change” will make things worse. Sigh.

Read: Climate Anxiety Is A Real Affliction Or Something »

If All You See…

…is a statue that is certainly made of materials that cause climate change, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is House Of Eratosthenes, with a post noting young people leaving Obama.

Read: If All You See… »

AP-GfK Poll: Insured Blame Obamacare For Rising Premiums And Deductibles

Yet another bad poll for Obama, Democrats, and their horrible partisan law

(Yahoo News) Americans who already have health insurance are blaming President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul for their rising premiums and deductibles, and overall 3 in 4 say the rollout of coverage for the uninsured has gone poorly.

An Associated Press-GfK poll finds that health care remains politically charged going into next year’s congressional elections. Keeping the refurbished HealthCare.gov website running smoothly is just one of Obama’s challenges, maybe not the biggest.

The poll found a striking level of unease about the law among people who have health insurance and aren’t looking for any more government help. Those are the 85 percent of Americans who the White House says don’t have to be worried about the president’s historic push to expand coverage for the uninsured.

More fun: an Obamacare supporter, who was finally able to enroll after 50 tries on-line

Thanks to tax credits available under the law, she was able to save about $100 a month on the monthly premium for her new coverage. But she had to switch carriers because staying with her current insurer would have cost more than she was willing to pay. She hasn’t gotten an invoice yet from her new insurance company.

The premiums she found on the new insurance marketplace were “not at all” what she expected, said Dessel. “They were much, much higher.”

A supporter of Obama’s overhaul, she believes changes are needed to make the coverage more affordable.

“I think with a lot of amendments or updates, it could be very, very helpful and beneficial,” said Dessel. “I know a lot of people who don’t have insurance. My hairdresser, my plumber don’t have insurance and they’re not going to get it if it’s not affordable.”

She loves the law, but still suggests massive changes. Surprise.

Read: AP-GfK Poll: Insured Blame Obamacare For Rising Premiums And Deductibles »

Your Old-Fashioned Christmas Tree Trimming Is Mostly Bad For Climate Change

Continuing the 25 Days Of Climate Christmas

(TribLive) Strands of lights are ubiquitous this time of year — tangled in leafless trees, framing windows, sparkling their way to Santa’s sled. They are a beaming reminder of the warm feelings of the holiday season and the environmental costs of this time of hyper-consumption. In 2003, a paper published by the Department of Energy estimated that holiday lights accounted for 2.22 terawatt-hours of energy use per year in the United States, which roughly equals the energy consumed by 200,000 homes annually. With numbers like that, coal may be the best thing to stuff in your neighbor’s twinkling stocking. He may need it.

Fortunately, Christmas lights have gradually switched over to LED in recent years. They are up to 90 percent more efficient than old-fashioned incandescent bulbs. So, should you trash your old holiday blinkers for their LED counterpart?

Yes, the article says, because they are evil energy sucking lights, and “If you’re harboring a strand of incandescent lights, the Earth begs you to ditch it and go for the LEDs.” Begs, I tell, you, begs!

But, what about stringing your tree with popcorn?

In other words, from an environmental perspective, there’s very little difference between trimming your tree with a pound of popcorn and using a strand of LED lights. That may seem surprising, since natural, farm-raised popcorn just feels greener than manufactured lights.

So, popcorn is OK. And the very fact that these Warmists even consider this into their calculations regarding Christmas is bat-guano insane. Then, their whole cult is bad-guano insane. Something like this will probably have them gnashing their teeth

Read: Your Old-Fashioned Christmas Tree Trimming Is Mostly Bad For Climate Change »

Pirate's Cove