Global Warming takes a hit.

If you have missed it, check out the story here: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/

And you might very well have missed it if you just follow the regular media. The BBC and Reuters both have not run anything on this since the story broke. Neither has MSNBC, and the NY Times has refused to publish anything from the leaked data as its "illegally obtained" (funny, that didn't stop them during the Bush Years).

Short of it is that a hacker (or maybe an insider who is in hiding) put out a huge amount of papers, emails and data from a climate research unit in a college in East Anglica, Great Britain. While everything has not been gone through yet due to the amount, several trends have been noted: constant referals to actual data not conforming to Global Warming Models, data being tampered with to make it conform, emails dicussing how to lose data or delete dicsussions about tampering or reasons why the model was not matching the data, emails discussing how to marginalize opposing viewpoints and other scientists, emails discussing how to ensure that only one viewpoint was acceptable, and emails discussing how they actually got rid of data and stonewalled Freedom of Information Act Requests in both the US and UK.

So much for science being open to critical debate. This sounds more like something the Spanish Inquisition would pull (I'll leave off the obvious MP reference). And the media is tucked in nice and snug with the AGW crowd.

I am a biology major (environmental) from college. I haven't used the degree much, but I have a pretty good understanding about how things work in terms of environmental science. We really are still learning about how our planet works, and how its interacting with the sun and space. Real science, able to really start understanding what is going on has only been around for less than 100 years. Not a lot of time to start making grand pronouncements about how we are dooming the earth. And I also have issues with how they are pushing this. I actually am all for new types of energy and moving away from coal and oil, but we can't seem to make the jumps because these idiots keep getting in the way. Nuclear is clean, natural gas in clean, how about we move into these more? One more nuclear plant (as in brand new) could shut down a lot of coal power. Natural gas burns much cleaner, and we have loads of it in the US, so no more "blood for oil" and less greenhouse gas (if that is actually a real problem). Nope, we have to hold out for "alternative energy" becuase god forbid we actually move gradually, we need the miracle NOW. Or we need to shut down the US economy in order to save the world from itself.

But even if we do all of this, I honestly don't think it really is going to stop climate change. The climate is GOING to change because it always does. Its how the earth works, its NATURAL. So let's drop this stupid idea and work on clean and more efficent power because its the smart thing to do. Even if Greenhouse gas is bogus (and it is certainly an unproven theory) it stinks. That's enough reason in my book to switch to a cleaner fuel right there.

Winning the war against Car Bombs

Check out the link: http://www.popsci.com/bown/2009/video/video-bombproof-wallpaper-vs-wrecking-ball

A Popular Science article that discusses a new Bomb-proof Wallpaper. No I am not making that up. Its a type of flexible, stretchable wallpaper that will flex and then snap back when his with kinetic force (wrecking ball, bomb blast). Helps the wall mantain its structual integrity and also prevents splinters from blasting into the room or the other side of the wall.

This is VERY cool. It probably won't stop a huge truck bomb, but it will certainly reduce damage and this thing has the potential to vastly reduce the effectiveness of all types of explosives against buildings. A hardening of the infrastructure. A major science breakthrough in the counter-terror art.

And the pictures

WARNING: Due to it being a bit dark out and my wife using a different camera, the picture is a bit, urm, graphic (as in you can see some of the knife work from the field dressing). So you have been warned.

Well, THAT didn't take long...

Hi everyone, Mike here from the farm. Deer season opened yesterday. I missed the morning because I had to drive up here. But I got here in time for the evening hunting. A day in deer season is divided into two sessions: morning and evening. Deer only move around during those times so if you are hunting in the middle of the day you are wasting your time.

Let me run this down for you. I arrive at 1430, just in time for the UNL/KU kickoff. I watch the first half of the game (tied at 10 all at half). I get dressed in the old Woodland pattern BDUs and Gortex, with winter boots (it wasn't that cold out, but the boots are water proofed and the padding wicks away sweat so the feet stay dry). We move out to the south pasture. Once there, we have a bit of stumbling around as my dad forgot the exact location of the blind. We find it, and I climb up into it. I have to say it was a scary blind to be in. No safety bars or straps and some of the "steps" were just small knots in the wood. Well, I get up there, hang up the camelbak (water and knife), and the rifle, dad leaves and I start scanning with the binos.

I am not there more than 5 minutes when two good sized does move out behind me in the river. I hear the splash and turn around and see them. I would have shot one if they had been closer, but I had a 30-30 with iron sites (I was going to use the 30-06 with scope this morning). The shot was VERY awkward from the blind so I figured I would wait. Were does are, bucks will soon be.

About 10 minutes later I heard a lot of brush breaking and twigs snapping from off to my right. I at first thought it was a hunter on foot. Deer can be loud, but not that loud. Whatever it was, I made noise for about 5 minutes, but I never saw what it was. The noise dies down and I turn around to face the river and I am staring at a four point buck standing on the sandbank not 25 meters from my tree blind. And I mean staring, the blasted deer had seen me turn around and was looking me in the eye. So I froze, and tried to make like a bush (30 feet up in the air, but what else can you do?). I had my binos in my hand, and I had to switch out for my rifle. I moved slowly, but he spooked and ran off.

So I figured I had blown it for the night's hunt. I had a good location certainly, but no other deer would be back after that right? Wrong.

Key rule about deer: they are stupid. Especially when its this time of year and they are after does.

I am slowly scanning around for about another 20 minutes. The sun finally drops a bit so I have a good view up river. I am doing a slow scan when I here another splash and some twigs snapping off to my left again. I turn around and there is a nice big buck coming across the river onto the sandbank. He keeps looking over to his right (my left) where those does were at earlier. Everytime he looks over I move a bit and bring my rifle around. He gets about midway to the main bank and instead of going over where the does were he starts moving my way. He walks almost to the spot where the other buck saw me and he looks up and sees me. And right as he freezes I shoot him dead center chest. We looked at the wound later and while I missed vital organs I broke his back about what would be waste level if he was bi-pedal. This paralyzed him. He actually sat down and didn't move, just stared at me with this "crap, this is what I get for thinking with the wrong head" look. After about 20 seconds he started to move and (not knowing where exactly I had hit him) I shot him again which dropped him (heart shot).

The buck weighed about 160 pounds after field dressing, which will give me about 90 to 100 pounds of deer meat. My mouth is already watering. Not the most impressive rack I have taken though. Only a 3/2 point. The two point horn was actually broken off, so this guy had been mixing it up earlier. He was a 2 or 3 year old. Bigger by a good 60 pounds than the last one I got though, so more yummy, deery goodness for me and the family.

This was the SHORTEST hunt I have ever had. From start to my second shot it was not even an hour. In that time I saw a total of 5 deer (another doe happend by after the first buck, but was running at a distance) in that time and I would have gladly shot anyone of them for size. I had five days of leave for this, now I just get to sleep in and goof off. Photos to follow.

"Its the second day of deer camp, and all the guys are here, we drink, play cards and shoot the bull but never shoot no deer, the only time we leave the camp is when we go for beer, the second day of deer camp is the greatest time of year!"

Why it pays to invest in your military

Here is something you should keep in mind when wondering why we spend so much on the military. We are coming up on nearly a full 10 years of war (we are at about 7 and a half). We have over 4000 dead in that entire time in two theaters of war against some rather tough opponents fighting us in a way that is as much as possible focusing on our weaknesses.

In the Battle of Antietam, in 1862, we lost 3600 dead in one day, with another 19500 (approximately) wounded.

When you invest in a professional military and make them constantly study and work and change and think, you go from two mobs slaughtering each other to nearly 8 years of war with roughly 500 dead a year (and that includes accidents and causes other than combat).

Money well spent? I think so.

Here's a more modern comparison. Russia in Afghanistan offically lost 15000 soldiers in 9 years. Recent studies have shown that number was grossly understated (new estimates by the Russian military (surpressed by the Russian government) put the number at 45000). We have been there for nearly 8 years now, we have less than 1000 dead including losses other than combat.

And not one of our losses was a draftee, everyone volunteered for this.

And for the people who made this Holiday possible...

HAPPY VETERAN'S DAY!

The 11th Hour of the 11th Day of the 11th Month.

Japanese Addendum

This is an add on to the other post. Japan was the other country on the Allied side that had some input into the artillery fight in WWI, but not in the way you might think.

The Imperial Japanese Army had fought the Russians in the Russo-Japanese War in the early 20th Century. Despite the fact that they had older weapons than the Russians, the Japanese were actually one of the first countries to develop the concept of Indirect Fire. This is the idea of having your guns/howitzers firing from far enough away that you cannot see the target from the gun. Observers must be used to successfully determine if you are hitting the target and to make adjustments as needed. The Japanese didn't use range so much as they used terrain. They would position guns behind hills, folds of ground, in forests, anything that concealed the guns from the Russians seeing them. Often the guns were very close to the fight. But the Japanese used their Battery Commanders to go forward with phone/telegraphs and flags to signal back to the guns adjustments needed. The Japanese were able to maximize their guns and beat the Russian Army in artillery in just about every battle.

Now, this had two impacts. One was that the Japanese got a very poor opinion of European artillery. Even when the Japanese used guns in direct fire mode, the Russians were often unable to knock them out. The Japanese started using their guns in more direct fire modes as they could greatly assist the infantry against dug in Russian positions. In WWI, the Japanese fought limited actions against small German forces in China, and again were able to use guns in direct fire mode without issue (the Germans had very small forces and couldn't stand up to the Japanese attacks). Then when fighting the Chinese in the 1920's and 1930's the Japanese again had zero counterfire threat and pretty much moved to close in support of the infantry via having the guns close in. They never developed the concepts of massing guns or centralized control due to their experience.

The other impact: one country was highly impressed by the Japanese ability to use indirect fire effectively and going into WWI had this as their key concept for artillery deployment. This country would build on it and combine it with the centralized fire concepts of the French.

That would be the US Army.