Skip to main content

Junk science scores





California to slash cars' carbon gases



When California Gov. Gray Davis signs a car emissions bill into law on Monday, he'll be taking on not just the U.S. automotive industry but also President Bush. The law will require sharp cuts in emissions of carbon dioxide, a gas many scientists fear is warming the Earth. The industry and the president oppose mandatory cuts, but several other states -- New York among them -- could follow California's path.
Wonderfully slanted article, but is "fair and balanced" compared to the radio news report I listen to this morning on NPR, which didn't even bother to present any opposing view, just Cal EPA director Hickox.



The numbers are simple, and they say that if California eliminated all "greenhouse gas production" it wouldn't have a squat's worth of influence on the global numbers. It's all show, a demonstration of state "leadership." Oh, it is to gag. What I loved about Hickox, listening to his unchallenged rhetoric on the radio, was his assertion that they're already demonstrating and using these alleged greenhouse gas reduction technologies in Europe.



Hello! Hello! Is anyone honest and intelligent in there? The question was doesn't a reduction in carbon dioxide production only come from an improvement in fuel economy? In other words, better gas mileage equals lower carbon dioxide production. Simple math, basic chemistry. Hickox dances around this quite nicely, while all the while saying how the Europeans are reducing CO2 production, etc.. Yet, you listen to his examples of their technologies and they all involve reducing fuel consumption.



Bozo. And last time I checked, California had the toughest emissions regs in the world. And Europe is a better example?



Argh!

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania

Wow, it’s been over a year. What a way to get back to this blog because… Are the films of the MCU getting worse? It’s a serious question because the latest that I’ve seen, Thor: Love and Thunder and Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania , are strong arguments that the answer is “yes.” Summary: Ant-Man & Ant-Family get sucked into the quantum realm, where skullduggery is afoot. A load of crap ensues. I’m an Ant-Man fan. I loved the first film despite its flaws. It would have been wonderful to see what Edgar Wright may have wrought. It was clear, though, that replacement director Peyton Reed kept some of Wright’s ideas alive. The result was one of the MCU’s most intimate films, a straight-forward tale of a Scott Lang (Paul Rudd) desperate to remain in his daughter’s life while being “gifted” the life of a superhero. Ant-Man and the Wasp sorta stayed that course, but naturally, because this is the modern MCU, we had to have a female superhero take over, the titular Wasp (Hope van Dyne,

John Wick: Chapter 4

No sense in playing coy, this is a great film. I’ve seen it twice and while I don’t quite love it in the way I love the first, original John Wick , it’s my #2. It’s a little overlong, has some wasted space and time, has one absolutely pointless and useless character, and generally ignores the realities of firefights, falling, getting shot, hit, etc. All that notwithstanding, it’s a great action flick, has a genuine emotional core, and is well worth your time if you’re into that sort of thing. Like I am. Summary: John Wick (Keanu Reeves), last seen saying he was fed up with the High Table, goes to war to obtain his freedom. Some of the most incredible action scenes ever filmed ensue, culminating in a very satisfactory finale and a devastating post-credit scene. The first Wick film was a surprise hit. It was a simple, straight-forward tale of vengeance told in a simple, straight-forward manner. Where it stood out was its devotion to human stunt work, on exploiting long camera shots that

Rogan

The entire Joe Rogan controversy is an example of the kids being left in charge and the adults refusing to teach them any better. I’m not a regular consumer of podcasts. There are a couple I listen to from time to time, but nothing on a regular basis. While I’ve caught a few minutes of the Joe Rogan Experience on YouTube, I’ve never listened to his podcast. One of the primary reasons for that is that you have to subscribe to Spotify to do so, and I prefer Qobuz, Tidal, or even Amazon Music. Rogan is behind Spotify’s paywall and that’s that. But the nature of the fight is about more than who does or does not listen to Rogan. This fight goes to the very nature of the First Amendment and the fundamental concept of the United States. And yes, I understand that cuts both ways. What’s his name and Joni Mitchell are free to yank their creations from Spotify, no ifs, ands, or buts. I’m not denying their right, I’m questioning their reasons. Rogan talks to people. He does so largely unfiltered.