A few of the summer businesses are still open, at least on the weekends, but are shuttered during the week. Most of those will be closed by Columbus Day weekend as by then the leaf peepers will have moved farther south and the last die-hard boaters will be pulling there boats out of the water and getting them stored away for the winter.
One does have to ask where the summer went as it passed by so quickly.
Then again, it always does.
Just when I thought they couldn't get any stupider, they prove me wrong.
The latest bit of stupidity? Former NYT labor reporter Steven Greenhouse lamenting the signal sent by the Trump administration by allowing an 11-year old boy mow the Rose Garden lawn.
His claim? That it's “not sending a great signal on child labor, minimum wage & occupational safety.” Yeah, it's for the children, right?
What a maroon!
This is funny...but oh so true.
(H/T Maggie's Farm)
One of the morning 'news' shows – it might have been GMA - went on about climate change, stating the oft debunked and quite misleading 'statistic' about how 97% of scientists agree that climate change is a fact. That in itself doesn't disturb me. What disturbs me is that it is implying that those 97% believe that it's humans causing climate change, but they aren't.
I certainly agree with the opinion that the climate is changing. What wouldn't I? Earth's climate is changing all the time and has seen drastic climate changes in its history. Ever hear of the cyclical Ice Ages? How about the Roman or Medieval Warm Periods, or the Little Ice Age? They all illustrate that Earth's climate changes, sometimes for short periods (a few hundred years) and sometimes for long periods (thousands or even millions of years).
But I don't agree with the premise that the most recent climate change, that being over the past 200+ years, has anything to do with us. Have we contributed to climate change? Yeah, probably. The most likely areas to see that effect is in metropolitan areas where the Urban Heat Island effect has great influence over the local climate. But global effects? Nope, I'm not buying it.
That it will lead to catastrophic climate change is one hell of a stretch as the 'trends' the CAGW alarmists like to use as proof positive are based on such a short period of time as to be useless. Their Global Circulation Models are so faulty that they don't even come close to matching what has actually happened. They also have been incapable of what's called “hindcasting”, using the models and starting their predictions during the latter half of the 19th century to see if they match the actual climatic conditions. (They didn't even come close, meaning they are seriously faulty.) Yet the CAGW faithful insist we must act on the basis of those models to reverse the 'damage' in order to save the Earth. Of course the suggested actions we must take will cause far more harm and damage than if we did nothing. It would also require trillions of dollars. (Notice that it always comes down to money?)
Personnaly, I think a somewhat warmer planet would be a more pleasant place to live.
In light of what I wrote just above, we must wonder whether natural disasters are on the rise. According to this piece the answer is “not really”.
One point that the post brings up is that the number of disasters reported went up, but the actual number of disasters likely has not, something that must be taken into account. One musn't confuse 'reported' with 'actual' as they aren't the same thing.
With better reporting and almost instantaneous global communications, disasters that would not have been reported in the past are now instant news, and that skews the perceived numbers of disasters even though the actual number may not have changed.
I have to admit that I do not like wind turbines. While the idea of them sounds great, they aren't a panacea for the ills 'created' by non-renewable energy sources. Moonbattery doesn't like them either, and for reasons with which I wholeheartedly agree.
They are hideous and mar otherwise scenic landscapes. They are economically inefficient. They generate a constant noise that drives people who live near them insane. They kill raptors, including the most beautiful of birds, eagles and hawks. They kill bats, which aren’t so beautiful, but keep the mosquito population under control. They are coercively subsidized with money Big Government confiscates from us. They are involved in boondoggles that allow crony capitalists to get rich by allocating wealth unreasonably after cozying up to slimy politicians. They are an immediately recognizable symbol of pure moonbattery. They remind those driving through the countryside that there is no escape from the P.C. ruling class and its demented mandates anywhere.Another problem? They cause wildfires.
And others? They are expensive to maintain. They are usually located far away from where any electricity they generate is needed, yet there's little or no infrastructure to get the power where it needs to be. Their service life is a WAG at best and I think they won't have nearly the longevity many proponents think they will. They require heavy government subsidies which means we pay for the more expensive electricity they generate one way or the other. (Well, actually both ways – the direct cost and the tax subsidies.) They require a lot of land per MWh of potential capacity as the so-called 'plate capacity' is the maximum a turbine could generate if there were sufficient wind 24/7. The actual capacity is generally less than a third of that.
If these things cannot survive without heavy subsidies then perhaps we shouldn't be subsidizing them at all. If they're so great they should be able to make money without the help of the taxpayer.
It seems California is bent upon hastening its own demise, this time by the California legislature passing a bill that would make it a “sanctuary state”.
If Governor Moonbeam signs it, the I suggest Congress vote to suspend any federal money going to California in regards to law enforcement because the federal agencies will need it to enforce our nation's immigration laws.
Cap'n Teach asks a truly important question on this matter, that being “What about the citizens of California feeling safe from the influx of criminal aliens?”
We already know the answer to that – California's state government doesn't care about its legal citizens. It already taxes and regulates the bejeezus out of them and wants to add even more financial burdens upon them. It could be why California has been losing both residents and businesses – they leave the state before the state can take it away from them to give to a 'more deserving' illegal immigrant.
And that's the news from Lake Winnipesaukee, where we await the rains from the latest hurricane/tropical storm remnant to arrive, try to get out roof finished before then, and make plans to get some more boating in before Columbus Day.