(Yes, I know, it’s not even SPRING, yet!)
A couple of weeks ago, it was cold and rainy, as it should be in February. Highs in the 50’s and 60s.
BUT, we do have occasions of warmer weather spurts, followed by cooling off periods, usually culminating in the first 100° temperature around the beginning of May (sometimes a day or two earlier. April?)
I remember a month of so ago, my roommate asking me to turn up the heat a click, as she was ‘freezing’. (The can be difficult to gauge accurately, as our thermostat resembles a Quija board, and she has her own internal thermostatic issues. And my room, most Westerly in the house, gets the most Sun and heat – making it 5-10 degrees warmer in warmer months (and colder in colder months)!
It appears we are beginning an up-tic: 88° Sunday (today), then 90°,92°,93°,92°,93°,95°,94° ! (per Yahoo Weather)
(My apologies, Rev. Paul, Brigid and Gloria!)
The brain trust on the street (aka the Chicken Littles) have begun proclaiming with it being this hot so early, that we are in for a scorching Summer, as is one may extrapolate the weather that far out! (attention Chicken Littles – most weather readers have enough trouble getting tomorrow’s temp correct! And you can predict 100 years in advance? Yeah. Global Warming. RI-IGHT!)
Like it’s going to be 150° in the shade in July. Silly geese.
Everyone knows it most likely won’t exceed 122°, 123°…
(Hopefully, this won’t happen until July, if ever!)
PHOENIX (CBS5) –
Do you remember the hottest day in Phoenix history?
It was on June 26, 1990, a day not easily forgotten as the mercury hit an all-time high temperature of 122 degrees.
Okay, June then!
(forgetting, for a moment, one cost me a job-unfairly, I think, back-in-the-day!)
The polygraph is an instrument which measures things like heart rate, perspiration, breathing and sometimes other body activity over which the person measured has little or no control. A skilled operator (who should also be a skilled interrogator) uses these measurements to determine if a subject is telling the truth to certain, carefully worded questions. It is not a lie detector, but a truth verifier.
Prior to 1988, many private companies utilized a pre-employment polygraph test, to determine if a subject was generally honest before hiring. Some also used polygraphs post-employment, at random intervals, to see if anything had changed. In 1988, Congress passed legislation limiting the use of pre-employment tests, with the exclusion of persons in certain sensitive positions, security, police and a few other jobs. Some States followed suit.
Many private companies were put out of business.
Having worked for a private investigations/polygraph firm for a number of years, it was an interesting experience.
First, some of the polygraphers (many of whom were retired law enforcement) thought themselves superior to the lowly civilian private investigators.
Second, I observed on numerous occasions, polygraphers watching job applicants arriving for a test, and making disparaging remarks, even before the interview or test began!
“This guy has liar written all over him!”
Hardly a lack of bias going in.
There was also a polygraph school adjacent to and affiliated with the investigations/polygraph company. When I was first employed as an investigator, I was considering signing up for the school, thinking it might be an important addition to my investigative skills. After observing and hearing the polygraphers, my interest waned.
This is not an indictment of all polygraphers, but just an observation based on some of those with whom I had negative encounters.
I suspect some of the laws have changed post 911, what with more agencies tasked with protection of the Republic from terrorists and spies.
I hope the current crop of polygraph examiners are more professional than some I encountered back-in-the-day.
We need all the help we can get.
Data Science,Climate and satellites Consultant John J Bates, who blew the whistle to the Mail on Sunday The Mail on Sunday can reveal a landmark paper exaggerated global warming
It was rushed through and timed to influence the Paris agreement on climate change
America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration broke its own rules
The report claimed the pause in global warming never existed, but it was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data
Funny how the Left is inexorably tied to
global warming climate change, regardless the evidence that continues to surface that man-made global warming was always a phony idea, designed to punish industrialization and governments, in the name of a new world order.
Could it be the Left wants to be at the helm of this new order?
(from The Firearm Blog, in part)
REBUTTAL: Washington Post On Suppressors
Robert J. Spitzer, author of Guns Across America, penned an opinion piece about silencers in the Washington Post this week. Like much of what we are accustomed to reading about firearms in today’s media, Spitzer is disingenuous in his arguments against the Hearing Protection Act (HPA) – a bill that proposes suppressors be removed from the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934. He begins:
Gunfire — loud, sharp, rude, abrupt — is an important safety feature of any firearm. From potential victims who seek to escape a mass shooting to a hiker being alerted to the presence of a hunter in the woods, the sound warns bystanders of potentially lethal danger. Yet gun advocates insist there is a greater danger: hearing loss by gun owners.
I am sure Spitzer is not the first gun control advocate to suggest that the report of a firearm is actually an “important safety feature”, however it is the first time I’ve heard it used in this context. A common misconception about silencers that has been repeated numerous times, is that a suppressed weapon can be used as a “silent killer”. Just two weeks prior, the author’s same publication addressed the Hollywood perception of silencers, confirming they are anything but silent.
Proponents of the deregulation of silencers, such as myself, will repeat this one fact over and over: legally referred to as silencers, these devices do not silence a firearm. In the majority of cases, additional hearing protection, such as ear plugs, must be worn even when a suppressor is used while shooting. So the author’s argument that silencers remove a “safety feature” (loud noises) from a discharged firearm is already crumbling. Honestly, for a professor, I’d expect at least some research followed by fact-based arguments.
But don’t take my word for it, Knox Williams, President of the American Suppressor Association (ASA) introduced me to Dr. Micheal Stewart, Director of Audiology at the Department of Communication Disorders at Central Michigan University. I asked Dr. Stewart “Is it possible to damage a persons hearing when using muffs or plugs alone?” He writes:
Yes, it is possible, especially if individuals are shooting numerous rounds of large caliber firearms with hearing protection devices (HPDs) that are not properly applied. For instance, the famous yellow plug has a high noise reduction rating (NRR), but it must be inserted properly. Also, it is not well suited for small, curvy ear canals so there is not a good acoustic seal and thus individual do not achieve the tabled attenuation values. In fact, NIOSH has de-rated formable plugs 50%, muffs 25%, and most other plugs 70%. The real world attenuation values may be significantly lower than the attenuation values obtained in the laboratory. Additionally, our research at CMU has consistently found that most hunters do not wear HPDs during hunting activities and many target shooters do not wear HPDs on a consistent basis.
As hearing conservationist, we are interested in the science regarding suppressors, not the politics. There is no doubt that suppressors (often incorrectly referred to as silencers) are effective in reducing auditory risk, however, HPDs should be used in conjunction with suppressors to further reduce risk. Depending on the type of firearm, caliber of firearm, and the acoustic environment, recreational firearm users may be able to wear HPDs with lower NRR values that still allow them to hear while protecting their hearing when shooting firearms equipped with suppressors.
‘Hearing Conservation, Not Politics’. Sounds familiar…
But there is a deeper concern with Spitzer’s Washington Post editorial, Spitzer makes claims regarding the HPA that need to be addressed. He writes:
The NRA is renewing with gusto its misbegotten push, begun in the last Congress, to make gun silencers easier to acquire by swiping a page from the public health community’s long-standing efforts to warn of the dangers of firearms. The Hearing Protection Act, which would remove federal registration and identification requirements for those seeking gun silencers…
First off, suppressors will only be “easier to acquire” because of the disappearance of abnormally long wait times to possess silencers which are fueled by bureaucracy and not due to a lack of background checks. The HPA proposes that the purchase of silencers be treated the same as long arms, which means that prospective buyers will still need to undergo a background check and follow all state and federal firearms laws. Let’s not forget that sound suppressors are nothing more than hollow tubes – they can’t fire any ammunition on their own.
Which leads me to another point: basic firearm silencers can be constructed from materials found in two isles of a hardware store for less than $20. If would-be criminals were so inclined, in a few hours time they could fashion a firearm suppressor that performs on par with commercially manufactured suppressors. Of course, in the process they would be violating several federal laws, punishable with a minimum of ten years in prison. But everyone knows that criminals check to see which laws not to break, on their way to break several other laws.
Since silencers don’t actually silence firearms and add up to a foot of length to any weapon, an overwhelming majority of criminals give no thought to attaching a muffler to their instruments of criminality. We are talking about statistically insignificant percentages of suppressors being used to commit crimes.
Go on, Professor, you were saying:
Absent some kind of cataclysmic hearing-loss crisis by America’s tens of millions of gun owners, this political push should be recognized for what it is: an effort to provide an extremely small benefit to gun owners that willfully ignores what can happen to others once a bullet leaves a gun barrel. The lifesaving safety benefits of gun noise should weigh far more in the silencer debate. Just ask anyone caught in the vicinity of a shooting.
Since when do shooters “willfully ignore” what happens when a bullet leaves a barrel? And yes, most suffer from some form of hearing loss; no it’s not an “extremely small benefit”. In a recent post by the ASA, they reference a 2011 report completed by the Centers For Disease Control (CDC) after a noise and lead analysis at a range in California. On page five the authors conclude:
The only potentially effective noise control method to reduce students’ or instructors’ noise exposure from gunfire is through the use of noise suppressors that can be attached to the end of the gun barrel. However, some states do not permit civilians to use suppressors on firearms.
It’s journalism like this column in the Post, masked as news analysis, that makes much of America wary of what they read in papers today. The Washington Post touted your opinion piece as being written by an expert, and yet you willfully ignore facts, data and evidence to push an agenda.
For shame, Professor. A man with your educational background should understand that fact-based arguments outweigh emotional rhetoric. Almost every aspect of your opinion piece is invalid and rooted in common misconceptions.
The HPA removes unnecessary barriers to lawful suppressor ownership through deregulation. Sure, they will no longer be listed on the NFA registry (a glorified national list of tubes), but each buyer must still pass the same background check used for every other gun purchased in the United States. And remember, silencers cannot fire a single bullet on their own.
This is the part of the article where I am supposed to offer you the chance to come over and shoot a few suppressed firearms in an attempt to “win you over”. No thanks; after reading your borderline slanderous opinion piece, I’m certain there is no empirical evidence that will help you come to an informed decision.
Ironic that we are talking about silencers since it is pretty clear that you are stuck in your own echo chamber.
I’ve oft written here (or
copied stolen other’s writings) regarding the substitute of ‘science’-with-an-agenda attached, versus pure science.
And, it seems to have happened, yet again!
First, DDT was BAD. It must be banned.
Then, the World was getting colder. The NEW Ice Age was upon us.
Followed by The Ozone Layer was being eaten away by hydrocarbons.
More recently, the World is getting WARMER. No WAIT! Weather is changing!
Now, we are losing BEE populations at an alarming rate! It’s the evil pesticides and GMOs, again! Ban stuff!
Of course, most of us are not scientists, and trust those who are to evaluate evidence without concern for the outcome, to give us a possible solution.
And governments world-wide jump on the band wagon to take control of the ‘problem’, even if it doesn’t exist!
Turns out DDT does remain present, but doesn’t seem to be harmful in the long run. Too bad, it’s banned!
The New Ice Age didn’t happen.
The hole in the ozone closed. Another crisis avoided apparently in a natural cycle. Of course, many chemicals were banned, regardless.
Climate Change? Yep, it happens. But unless scientists skew their results to fit a socialist agenda, humanity appears to not be responsible.
Regarding THE BEES:
I do find it interesting that every environmental ‘crisis’ comes now with an attached (socialist/world-wide) solution.
It’s for the children, ya know!
from Free North Carolina
Antarctic sea ice had barely changed from where it was 100 years ago, scientists have discovered, after pouring over the logbooks of great polar explorers such as Robert Falcon Scott and Ernest Shackleton. Experts were concerned that ice at the South Pole had declined significantly since the 1950s, which they feared was driven by man-made climate change.
But new analysis suggests that conditions are now virtually identical to when the Terra Nova and Endurance sailed to the continent in the early 1900s, indicating that declines are part of a natural cycle and not the result of global warming.
Remember in the 60’s- 70’s, it was going to be the next Ice Age? Followed in the 90’s by erosion of the ozone layer and everyone getting sunburned. Then came Global Warming – until the scientific results didn’t fit – then it renamed Climate Change. (because, the climate doesn’t NOT change).
What do all these ‘scientific proven results’ have in common? They are man made (because men, commerce and industry is inherently evil!)
Funny how many of the same scientists jumped from one catastrophe to another, whenever the outcome was in question.
And leftist politicians are all about punishing those who don’t toe-the-line!
(As posted on The Grey Enigma)
Some Pacific Islanders Have DNA Not Linked To Any Known Human Ancestor – All That Is Interesting
Children from the village of Hanuabada play cricket in the streets on February 24, 2012 in Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea. Most everyone knows that the islands of the South Pacific are some of the most remote and unique places on Earth, but a new study reveals just how unique they really are.According to a report from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, researchers have found traces of a previously unknown extinct hominid species in the DNA of the Melanesians, a group living in an area northeast of Australia that encompasses Papua New Guinea and the surrounding islands.A computer analysis suggests that the unidentified ancestral hominid species found in Melanesian DNA is unlikely to be either Neanderthal or Denisovan, the two known predecessors of humankind to this point.
Source: Some Pacific Islanders Have DNA Not Linked To Any Known Human Ancestor – All That Is Interesting
View original post
An addendum to that whole ‘the science is settled’ thing.
We thought we knew about the origins of mankind.
The Silicon Graybeard (not a wild-eyed conspiracy guy!) brings us (in part)
Translates as “Let justice be done, though the world perish”. Apparently it’s not really a phrase from the Roman Empire but from a book in 1563. Wikipedia says:
This sentence was the motto of Ferdinand I, Holy Roman Emperor, probably originating from Johannes Jacobus Manlius’s book Loci Communes (1563). It characterizes an attitude, which wants to provide justice at any price. Its first documented use in English literature was about half a century later.
Hat Tip to The Arts Mechanical for this information, in a piece called Nightmare Fuel, and it really is reading that’s not for the squeamish. He, in turn, links to a number of sources that are reporting on the truly disgusting things going on in Clinton Foundation’s universe. First a link to True Pundit:
BREAKING BOMBSHELL: NYPD Blows Whistle on New Hillary Emails: Money Laundering, Sex Crimes with Children, Child Exploitation, Pay to Play, Perjury
It’s. Not. Just. Bill. It’s all of them. From Reddit’s The_Donald forum :
BREAKING: I believe I have connected a convicted child abductor who was caught stealing children in Haiti with the Clintons
But wait! There’s more! (Sickeningly)
I truly believe the Clintons and their entourage to be evil. Morally bankrupt.
Even if none of the above allegations (many courtesy of Wikileaks) are based in fact.
Humans want to believe the worst about persons whom they already despise. It makes it easier to put them in the why would I want to elect THEM column.
Not forgetting about Benghazi, the Clinton Foundation, Hillary’s gun control plans, the illegal sale of plutonium to Russia, arming ISIS, the countless mysterious deaths and intimidations, Bill’s serial rapes…
(I could go on – but I have to go take some Pepto now.)
This does NOT mean I am actively supporting the Republican candidate!
He may be a pig and has used inappropriate language, and at best is a populist (see Huey Long
Libertarians? Two governors with scant international experience? One of who is a rebranded, gun-controlling Democrat?! And the Presidential candidate supports global-warming taxes?!
(I’m not even mentioning the Greens or the Commies… I know, I’m being redundant)
So VOTE. Vote not with your heart, but with your brain.
THE REPUBLIC’S SURVIVAL DEPENDS ON IT.
Peter (Bayou Renaissance Man)
posited thusly (in part)…
Donna Laframboise asks, “How many scientific papers just aren’t true? Enough that basing government policy on ‘peer-reviewed studies’ isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.”
We’re continually assured that government policies are grounded in evidence, whether it’s an anti-bullying programme in Finland, an alcohol awareness initiative in Texas or climate change responses around the globe. Science itself, we’re told, is guiding our footsteps.
There’s just one problem: science is in deep trouble. Last year, Richard Horton, editor of the Lancet, referred to fears that ‘much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue’ and that ‘science has taken a turn toward darkness.’
It’s a worrying thought. Government policies can’t be considered evidence-based if the evidence on which they depend hasn’t been independently verified, yet the vast majority of academic research is never put to this test. Instead, something called peer review takes place. When a research paper is submitted, journals invite a couple of people to evaluate it. Known as referees, these individuals recommend that the paper be published, modified, or rejected.
If it’s true that one gets what one pays for, let me point out that referees typically work for no payment. They lack both the time and the resources to perform anything other than a cursory overview. Nothing like an audit occurs. No one examines the raw data for accuracy or the computer code for errors. Peer review doesn’t guarantee that proper statistical analyses were employed, or that lab equipment was used properly. The peer review process itself is full of serious flaws, yet is treated as if it’s the handmaiden of objective truth.
And it shows. Referees at the most prestigious of journals have given the green light to research that was later found to be wholly fraudulent. Conversely, they’ve scoffed at work that went on to win Nobel prizes. Richard Smith, a former editor of the British Medical Journal, describes peer review as a roulette wheel, a lottery and a black box. He points out that an extensive body of research finds scant evidence that this vetting process accomplishes much at all. On the other hand, a mountain of scholarship has identified profound deficiencies.
. . .
Politicians and journalists have long found it convenient to regard peer-reviewed research as de facto sound science. Saying ‘Look at the studies!’ is a convenient way of avoiding argument … We’ve long been assured that reports produced by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are authoritative because they rely entirely on peer-reviewed scientific literature. A 2010 InterAcademy Council investigation found this claim to be false, but that’s another story. Even if all IPCC source material did meet this threshold, the fact that one academic journal — and there are 25,000 of them — conducted an unspecified and unregulated peer review ritual is no warranty that a paper isn’t total nonsense.
If half of scientific literature ‘may simply be untrue’, then might it be that some of the climate research cited by the IPCC is also untrue? Even raising this question is often seen as being anti-scientific. But science is never settled. The history of scientific progress is the history of one set of assumptions being disproven, and another taking its place.
There’s more at the link. Ms. Laframboise’s full report may be read here (the link is to an Adobe Acrobat document in .PDF format).
This is precisely why I profoundly distrust any politician who tries to tell us that ‘the science is settled’. All too often, it’s far from settled. It may even be actively and deliberately fraudulent, producing results tailor-made to satisfy the objectives of those who’ve funded the research. Too many ‘researchers’ begin with a goal in mind, their conclusions already identified, and then seek evidence that will substantiate what they want to prove. Anything to the contrary is ignored or discarded, or flagrantly manipulated to achieve the desired result (as in this example, to cite just one – there are many more).
That’s not research at all. It’s pseudo-scientific sleight of hand. It’s a shell game.
I used to believe in SCIENCE. After all, having been taught The Scientific Method, along with the histories of Newton, Curie, Tesla, Edison, Einstein and others, I believed hard work, documentation, reproducing results and guts did it.
The idea that scientists were bending or fabricating their results toward a financial end didn’t even cross my mind. (think Galileo!)
I used to believe in GOVERNMENT. The blueprint the Founding Fathers left us was damn near perfect. Persons who sought government service would swear to uphold the principles espoused in The Constitution.
But, there was an assumption those who chose public service would be MORAL and ETHICAL!
The fact such persons would commit perjury by swearing falsely never even crossed my radar.
The scales have indeed dropped from my eyes.
And scientists and politicians will have to reach a high bar to gain my trust ever again.
Now, I’m relegated to a bunker (in an unknown location) and tin-foil hat (at least philosophically).
If you don’t know the access password, watch out!
(from TFB, in part)
It appears that those field tests for meth might not be as reliable as we all might have thought. A Flordia man was jailed after a loose flake of icing from his bi-weekly Krispy Kreme glazed doughnut tested positive for methamphetamine.
I know Krispy Kreme’s doughnuts are good, but test positive for drugs good?
When police pulled Dan Rushing over for speeding, they found a small piece of icing on the floor of his car during a search. The little piece of icing wasn’t even large enough to cover a pinky nail, officers then used a Safariland field test to determine if it was meth or not. According to an article by WFTV 9, the icing tested positive as meth not once, but twice.
Rushing was held for around 11 hours as well as strip searched as a result of the icing testing positive. There was no mention of if the charged were dismissed or he was released on bond, but shortly after The Flordia Department of Law Enforcement tested the icing in a lab, determining that the “meth” was in fact glaze.
No word at this time from Safariland as to why they tests failed to identify the icing as not meth or how they plan to respond to being sued. My question is how did these officers mistake doughnut glaze for meth, given their profession they should be familiar with the substance. It had to be said folks.
Click HERE for more on WFTV 9’s website.
Yeah, no eating doughnuts in my car, anymore. I don’t need the hassle.
Besides, I’m diabetic, and should minimize consumption of such things!