Global Luke-Warming

From global warming to global lukewarm. Read the British conclusion here.

Nobel Peace Prize Scientist Renounces Global Warming

The interpretation of the limited data is changing...

New Ray Study of Homeschooler Demographics

An informative review of last years great homeschooling study by NHERI's Dr. Ray:

"This is the latest of a long line of nearly identical studies Ray has been performing for decades now at fairly even intervals. In two previous posts I reviewed this large body of work, which you can read here and here. This new study tries very hard to overcome one of the most persistent deficiencies of his previous work (and the 1999 Rudner study)–the near exclusive reliance on HSLDA’s advertisement to recruit subjects, leading to unrepresentative samples. This time around Ray tried to recruit families from outside of the HSLDA orbit. Did he succeed?" Continued here.

More global warming hypocrisy

Global Warming Scam Discovered?

Over at a technological e-zine, the Register, there is a report on how peer-review failed to uncover slanted data from the UN climate change papers.

Here.

And an earlier report on the growing number of "non-believers" in 'climate change', here.

Falsifying Scientific Arrogance

The place had that old smell of a large building that existed one-hundred years too long. As I entered the bedraggled auditorium the metal frames and vaulted ceiling silently spoke of a bygone age when 'God' was not a dirty word and science was less hostile to Christianity.

I was late. The lunch meal took too long. But it was enjoyable. Being tardy didn't especially matter as the lecture started about fifteen minutes late while people trickled in. Finding a seat in a sea of uncomfortable 70ish chairs, I sat in the middle left side with a good line-of-sight of the speaker-to-be. The speaker, Mr. Stenger (of the infamous book, God: the Failed Hypothesis), was introduced as a professor of philosophy and a practicing physicist of many, many years. As I adjusted my paper, pen and books, the aged professor plodded purposefully to the podium. He introduced his thesis with relative clarity and somewhat proper philosophical considerations--definitions, deductions and whatnots.

After a surprisingly short 35 minute presentation, he had given the highlights of his thesis that the God hypothesis is a failure, useless and patently absurd. It was time for Q&A. I quickly scanned my notes, knowing that only one question would be practically allowed, I thought, what is the best question to ask?

The atheist club coordinators took a practical approach to the Q&A time by handing the mic to those in the front row and continued to worm their way to the back. Only one question was clearly Christian, asking an important question of what constituted "independent verification." Other questions were more of a benign nature or reinforcing the professor's thesis. I listened intently. What should I ask?

One gentleman--a scientist--challenged the lecturer's premise that the God-question could even be answered by science. But the point was not pushed. Another more excitable speaker--in the row right before me, what am I going to ask?--reiterated the old atheist canard about God not existing because evil exists.

Ah, yes, my notes from his book. Here, the hole in the book as large as the universe. The mic was handed to me: "Yes, thank you. Sir, you wrote in your book, and I quote..."

"I can't hear you," the professor replied. The acoustics were bad. So I summarized:

"You wrote that there was no consensus among philosophers of science on what actually constitutes real science as over and against pseudo or non-science, correct?"

"Yes..."

"You also wrote that the methodology that will be used to disprove the God-hypothesis is the approach by the philosopher, Popper. It is known as 'falsification'--using tests to try to disprove a given hypothesis."

"Yes, but..." and the disgruntled professor tried to run rough-shod over my question. Perhaps he thought I had asked my question. Or knew where I was going with it...

"Excuse me, sir, I have not properly asked my question yet."

"Go ahead."

"You wrote that the falsification method cannot 'sufficiently'--your words--account for the difference between science and non-science. If this is true and you believe this, then how can the falsification method be used to falsify the God-hypothesis when the method itself is not 'sufficient' to distinguish between hypotheses, between science (truth) and non-science (falsity)?"

"!!! Here now, science has done great things for us...!!"

He was none too happy.

SDG

Global Cooling

Check out Time magazine:

"The discoveries of changes in the sun's heat ( TIME, May 5) and the southward advance of glaciers in recent years have given rise to conjectures of the possible advent of a new ice age."

Carefully check out the New York Times links.

Ice Age Predicted
Major Cooling

......notice anything?


If the chronological factor is curious, then you are on to something.

A 2006 online article lays out the time line for the "science" of climatology. It's quite informative...tell your friends.

They don't even have to read it; they can just look at the pretty pictures and time-lines.

Original Sin vs. Science?

A friend of mine discovered some news you won't find in the mainstream.

Earth Day Hides the Facts About Trees & Cows

Ah, Earth Day. I'm sure the Druids are laughing all the way to the bank. When the here and now is all that you have, then "saving the Earth" becomes one's redemption.

Below are some data that will not be heard in the supposed public arena of debate. Scientists make these conclusions, but they appear to be a minority report--does that make them automatically wrong? In times past, the majority of scientists thought the atom was only made of electrons, neutrons and protons! Boy, who would have thought of quarks! It was a good thing that they did not run politics or the media back then!

Read on:

1) As an engineer I've had much training in the basic sciences. I was taught to think logically, to analyze the data, chart it and draw conclusions--to "connect the dots".

As a matter of fact, all Americans who took any science have gone through this process.

That is except for Earth Day enthusiasts. Using NASA data, Junkscience.com has done a favor and "connected the dots" of Artic warming. For us and for the confused Greenies. The data covers from 1880 to 2004 and includes both poles and carbon dioxide readings--what more would we want?

One chart shows a "cooling trend" in the 40s-60s--the time my pastor was going to school. He remembers very fondly that the scientists were warning everyone of a coming ice-age! I would love to get my hands on those papers.

The chart is not exactly symmetrical since the y-axis moves from 2 C to -2.5 C. But everyone can see that the "warming trend" since the 60s is just under +1.5 C whereas in 1937 it hit +1.5 C in the Artic. As a matter of fact the temperature moved to almost -2 C in 1887.

At the end of the day, the question is whether there is enough data to sustain any kind of conclusion. Without records from hundreds of years ago (say 1750) it is hard to have a comparison. This is especially true if one follows the modern million-year theory of the earth or of mankind.

Read on!

2) Are your trees killing you?

The logic of some modern scientist will astound you!


3) How about your cows?

This is serious business, not only is mankind destroying the environment...so are the cows!
(The Week, Aug. 12, 2005, p. 6--this is not a conservative mag!).

"A California air-quality agency is blaming cows for the San Joaquin Valley's terrible smog problem. The flatulence and burping of the valley's 2.5 million cows produce 50 million pounds of organic compunds annually, officials say, far more pollution than is produced by cars. Diary farmers will now be required to install pollution-control technology, and may even have to alter the cows' diets to minimize their production of gas. 'We are talking about about a public health crisis,' said an attorney for a local advocacy group...'It's not funny to joke about cow burps....'"

SDG
[I'm always open to more juicy data--as long as it is from a common-news source and/or verifiable]

Bad Bovines

"A California air-quality agency is blaming cows for the San Joaquin Valley's terrible smog problem. The flatulence and burping of the valley's 2.5 million cows produce 50 million pounds of organic compunds annually, officials say, far more pollution than is produced by cars. Diary farmers will now be required to install pollution-control technology, and may even have to alter the cows' diets to minimize their production of gas. "We are talking about about a public health crisis, " said an attorney for a local advocacy group..."It's not funny to joke about cow burps...."

This is serious business, not only is mankind destroying the environment...so are the cows!
(The Week, Aug. 12, 2005, p. 6).