No Relief Thursday!

By -
It's interesting how the weather purveyors have really bought into sensationalizing the weather. The Weather Channel is always running some program about how your city is likely to be destroyed by a plague of locusts or hail the size of bowling balls, probably by the time the program ends. Today I looked at the Accuweather site and found a headline something like (I'm getting an error re-loading the page right now): "Northeast Heat: No Relief Thursday." Pretty awful, huh?

But when I checked the details I found that, first of all, it is going to be seven or eight degrees cooler than yesterday, and secondly, that the cold front is about one hundred miles north of me and moving my way. An alternative headline would have been, "Already cooler, cold front to hit tonight." But I guess that doen't sell as well.

Comments

  1. Fred Mangels9:36 AM

    And it doesn't help foment global warming hysteria.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Margaret1:23 AM

    The Weathermen admitted that the Atlantic is cooler this year and that's why we aren't having as many hurricanes. Isn't that proof that an ice age is upon us?

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more