Words of Advice:

"If Something Seems To Be Too Good To Be True, It's Best To Shoot It, Just In Case." -- Fiona Glenanne

"
Flying the Airplane is More Important than Radioing Your Plight to a Person on the Ground Who is Incapable of Understanding or Doing Anything About It." -- Unknown

"There seems to be almost no problem that Congress cannot, by diligent efforts and careful legislative drafting, make ten times worse." -- Me

"What the hell is an `Aluminum Falcon'?" -- Emperor Palpatine

"Eck!" -- George the Cat

Tuesday, July 16, 2019

Fifty Years On

Apollo 11 lifted off to become the first time a human set foot on another celestial body.


Here's a look-back from ten years ago.

If civilization survives to the 25th Century, if anyone knows the name of anyone from th 20th Century, it will be Neil Armstrong. If they know three, add the Wright Brothers' names.

Doing things on a national basis because they are hard is passé in this country. Oh, we'll throw money at expensive programs for the purposes of killing other people, but programs to go explore the cosmos.. not so much. Programs to do something about climate change... hard pass. Programs to fight pernicious diseases... nickel and dime funding.

We no longer have no national will for anything other than making war and giving tax cuts to the rich.

13 comments:

B said...

"Climate Change"(the new name for "Glowbal Warming when that wouldn't fly with the public) is a hoax.

We could afford to explore the Cosmos of we didn't spend so much money on Social Welfare programs and other Socialist initiatives.

Comrade Misfit said...

We could afford to explore the Cosmos if we weren't so focused on giving tax cuts to the rich.

B said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
B said...

How much is enough tax?

It is the "Rich: that fund this country, not "Joe(or Jane) average citizen"

Please, define "Fair Share" and all the other Buzzwords the progressive left uses when they want more tax money..

How high a percentage is enough?
How much Socialism is enough?

It is, in the end, a matter of choice as to where we spend the monies we take from our productive citizens. If you prefer socialism and promoting bad choices over exploring the cosmos, then deal with your choices. Taking more money from already productive citizens will, historically, simply increase the socialist experiments further and not increase science spending.

CenterPuke88 said...

“Climate Change is a hoax”. OK, B., please provide a scientific basis for that statement that attracts at least 50% agreement with scientists in the field (hint, you can’t).

dinthebeast said...

I seem to remember much higher marginal tax rates being in effect when we were actually flying the Apollo missions.

-Doug in Oakland

B said...

CP: Look at climate data (Hint: the REAL data, not the "Adjusted" data) and you will see.

Real, unadjusted, data does not indicate global warming. Nor do the temperature "models", when fed real historical data, come close to predicting current temperatures.

But you want to believe, so go ahead.



Comrade Misfit said...

1962, when JFK gave his speech at Rice U.: Top marginal tax rate was 91%, capital gains 26%, corporate 52%

1969: Top marginal rate was 77%, capital gains 27.9%, corporate 53%

The top marginal rate should be over 50%, maybe closer to 70%. Capital gains should be around 40% or even the same as the marginal rate, for capital gains over a million a year. There's no reason why hedge-fund guys should be able to structure their pay as capital gains instead of wages. Or maybe a top rate of 40% while lifting the cap on SSI contributions.

dinthebeast said...

June was the hottest month in recorded history.

-Doug in Oakland

B said...

Keep saying that. I've heard it for years, but the data doesn't back it up. Unless you use the a"Adjusted" data that is increased by about 2 C.

Actual, you know, measured data doesn't back your statement.

Keep believing in Bigfoot too. And the Tooth Fairy.


CenterPuke88 said...

B., so “adjusted data”, data that properly reads the results of satellite data that is skewed by the reading techniques is less preferable than using data you know is incorrect because it feed into your preconceived notions? Your echo chamber is gonna keep getting hotter until you boil like a frog.

B said...

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/the-stunning-statistical-fraud-behind-the-global-warming-scare/

So adjusting data by more than 1 degree C up for the present and down for the past isn't fraudulent?

Actual data shows no warming. You know, ACTUAL MEASURED DATA.

Follow the links from this posting:

https://borepatch.blogspot.com/2015/02/so-how-did-climate-data-get-changed.html

Actual measured data does not support global warming. Real measurements show little or no change. Highest ever temps in 1936. Hottest 5 years '34 to '39. Which, oddly enough, correlate to solar activity cycles.

Now go get some more news from the USA today:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/07/16/heat-waves-worsen-because-global-warming-study-says/1734127001/

(They don't understand the difference between Heat Index and real, measured, temps.)

CenterPuke88 said...

Here ya go, B.:

https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-data-adjustments-affect-global-temperature-records

This primer on temperature adjustments should clear it up a bit, but the end result is that the adjustment process has actually REDUCED the warming trend since 1880. As for actual measured data, tell me, does a temperature reading taken in an ear vs forehead vs armpit vs rectally vs orally get treated equally? The answer is no, by the way. Each method will return a slightly different value, due to the method and devices used for each, yet we can compare the data by knowing that the oral temperature is considered the baseline, with rectal and ear slightly higher and armpit and forehead slight cooler.

The simple fact is there is so much misinformation out there, you can believe what you want, but the world is rapidly warming and the evidence is right before us.