Search This Blog

Sunday, February 28, 2010

Indiana's Scott Brown? Marlin Stutzman even better!

Marlin Stutzman and his wife, Christy (all photo credits Thomas Semesky) All pictures taken during a February Lake County, Indiana reception. Christy sang the national anthem while Marlin spent most of his time answering questions. Marlin is one of the nicest guys in the world, but he gets things done! Check out his record. Any guy who can convince Senators to forego pension money and agree to lobbying limitations needs to take that same mojo to Washington, DC.

This OP-ED piece from the Washington Examiner:

Ken Tomlinson: Can a Hoosier farmer produce another Massachusetts miracle for Republicans?

By: Kenneth Tomlinson
Examiner Contributor
February 20, 2010

A notable buzz surrounded youthful Indiana State Sen. Marlin Stutzman as he was escorted around this week’s Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) by activist Donna Weisner. “Back in Indiana, they say he’s our Scott Brown,” she said proudly.

Stutzman supporters elatedly boasted news of a Rasmussen poll that gives Stutzman a ten-point lead over the likely Democrat nominee for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Evan Bayh.

All this is a stunning development for the young farmer and businessman who only four years ago was the youngest member of the Indiana legislature. In Washington power circles former Sen. Dan Coats has been all but anointed the GOP nominee for the Bayh seat.

In Indiana there has been a real pushback to the Washington-blessed Coats candidacy, and as ten thousand conservatives gathered for CPAC they were greeted by a huge Stutzman endorsement by increasingly influential RedState blogger Erick Erickson.

Declared Erickson: “The GOP needs to change its public image that voters have. It should not be using retired senators who moved out of state and become a lobbyist to do that.

“We need younger faces and fresher voices. We need guys like Marco Rubio. We need guys like Marlin Stutzman.”

This reaction is not the only thing the veteran conservative favorite Coats has to worry about in the senate race. CNN reports Democrats have unearthed a news video showing Coats talking about moving to North Carolina because the Tar Heel state “might be a better place” to live than Indiana. Critics also are combing through records from Coats’s recent work as a lobbyist, searching for clients who might lead to political embarrassment.

As excited as Stutzman’s supporters are over the Rasmussen poll, he is by no means a household name in the Hoosier state. Coats still is viewed as a clear favorite by D.C. political handicappers—and in the same Rasmussen poll Coats holds a 14-point lead over 8th district Rep. Democrat Brad Ellsworth, who in recent days announced he is running for the Bayh seat. For that matter, former 8th district Rep. John Hostettler who was defeated by Ellsworth in 2006 holds a 19- point lead over the man he beat, according to the Rasmussen poll.

Hostettler has been hammering away at Coats, despite his lifetime 90 percent ACU rating, because he was one of only a handful of GOP senators to vote for the Brady gun control bill. Hostettler is better known in Indiana than Stutzman—but his notoriety isn’t always a political plus.

As aggressively as Hostettler hammers away at Coats’s Second Amendment record, when it comes to gun control Hostettler has a record of his own. In August of 2004, he pleaded guilty to carrying a loaded semiautomatic handgun into a security checkpoint in the Louisville airport. A judge sentenced him to 60-days in prison but suspended the sentence.

On foreign policy issues, Hostettler tends to reflect the views of libertarian Rep. Ron Paul, R-TX.

Hostettler was swept into office in the big Republican year of 1994, but he managed to win reelection five times in Indiana’s “Bloody-Eighth,” which in the 1970s had the distinction of sending four different congressmen to the House in four successive elections.

Hostettler established a reputation as a poor fund raiser—in fairness he refused to accept PAC money—and the Almanac of American Politics notes that he once won reelection despite being outspent 2 to 1 by his Democrat opponent. His fund-raising deficiencies caught up with him in 2006 when Ellsworth, a county sheriff, crushed Hostettler. Ellsworth outspent him 3 to 1.

Fund raising for Hostettler may prove to be a real barrier in the senate primary. Erickson was one of the conservative leaders who produced a huge influx in campaign contributions in NY-23, and if the CPAC reaction to Stutzman is any reaction, national conservative money should be headed his way.

Stuzman is a fourth-generation farmer who grew up near Howe. He and his father farm 4,000 acres and also run a trucking company. He is an active Baptist and has participated in numerous church mission ventures around the world. In the Indiana legislature, he has been known as a supporter of tax cuts—and reductions in state spending. Stutzman has the support of Indiana senate pro tempore Daniel Long.

Footnote: A host of Washington journalistic insiders reported that Bayh had a comfortable leader when he stunned observers with his announcement that he would not seek reelection this fall.

That was far from the case.

A month ago, another Rasmussen poll showed Bayh in deep trouble back home. That survey showed Bayh attracting less than 50 percent of the vote against likely GOP opponents and Rasmussen concluded Bayh would likely face “a tough reelection battle” in the fall. Bayh chose not to face such a battle.

Coats made a similar decision 12 years ago when he chose not to run for reelection against then-popular Gov. Evan Bayh. Hoosiers have not seen Coats’s name on a ballot in 18 years.

Ken Tomlinson is a former editor-in-chief of The Reader's Digest.

RedState's Erick Erickson has endorsed Marlin Stutzman among his endorsements for 2010:


Ken Buck (CO)

Chuck DeVore (CA)

Mike Lee (UT)

Marco Rubio (FL)

Marlin Stutzman (IN)

Danny Tarkanian (NV)

Todd Tiahrt (KS)

Pat Toomey (PA)

Michael Williams (TX)


Rick Barber (AL-2)

Tim Burns (PA-12)

Sean Duffy (WI-7)

Jeff Duncan (SC-3)

Steve Fincher (TN-8)

Andy Harris (MD-1)

Tim Huelskamp (KS-1)

Adam Kimzinger (IL-11)

Robin Smith (TN-3)

Brian Rooney (MI-7)

Dennis Ross (FL-12)


Nikki Haley (SC)

Karen Handel (GA)

Rick Perry (TX)

I’ll add more later. I hope you’ll look at them and consider supporting them, funding them, and praying for them.

Friday, February 26, 2010

Answers to comments on DNA and Science

I did not ask how preexisting DNA is read, nor did I ask about mutations."

No, you said information doesn't grow on trees. Jon responded to that by pointing out that it comes from mutations, though it should be added that it comes from mutations filtered through natural selection, leading to information as to which mutations are useful being retained and becoming part of the organism's genetic makeup. Hence an accumulation of genetic information over time.

You have nothing here. Mutations of WHAT? Where does DNA come from? The immense complexity of DNA is a mystery to most of us. A great deal of DNA is information. Information is intentional, a component of design. Anyone who looks at this objectively would say that DNA is a remarkable piece of engineering.

Maybe you can do card tricks, but first you need the cards. Darwinism has no explanation for where the cards came from in the first place and shuffling the deck is not making anything. Taking a couple of cards from the deck changes it but doesn't make it...

"Where in the world did you get the idea a pile of mud would suddenly convert itself into a complex blueprint with complex copying/coding mechanisms that the finest minds do not yet completely understand?"

Ah, I see where you're having a problem with this: "pile of mud" and "suddenly". A pile of mud suddenly turning into a modern human... but wait, that's the story in the Bible. And you're right, it does sound pretty silly... but it's not what the theory of evolution says, so you can direct that complaint at the Bible, not the theory of evolution.

We're talking about something different here, see. Gradual evolution over many, many, many generations, not suddenly. The evidence is strong for evolution having occurred. Witness for example - this has come up on your blog quite a lot in the last few days - the fact that the theory of evolution perfectly matches the location of fossils in the fossil record, for which YEC/global flood thinkers have absolutely no response. You hear incredibly vague mutterings about "specific gravity" or "ability to flee" and such as ways of explaining why fossils are arranged in this way, but none even comes close to matching up with reality and providing a scientific explanation of how such a mechanism "sorted" the fossils as they are currently found.

Point one.

"If you could peer into any one of your body's 50 trillion cells, you'd find a fantastically complex and busy world. At the center of this world you'd find a nucleus containing 46 molecules called chromosomes-23 from your mother and 23 from your father. These chromosomes are basically an instruction set for the construction and maintenance of... you..

These two long stacks of building blocks fit together like two sides of zipper, but there's a rule involved: adenine only pairs with thymine, and cytosine only pairs with guanine. So each rung in the DNA ladder is a pair of nucleotides, and each pair is either an A stuck to a T or a C stuck to a G.

You've got six billion of these pairs of nucleotides in each of your cells, and amongst these six billion nucleotide pairs are roughly 30,000 genes. A gene is a distinct stretch of DNA that determines something about who you are. (More on that later.) Genes vary in size, from just a few thousand pairs of nucleotides (or "base pairs") to over two million base pairs." From Stanford University's tech blog. The DNA in your body would stretch out to the moon and back 130,000 times. Why is this important? Because DNA is very exacting and very complex. It is hilariously ridiculous to believe that any series of accidents could produce this blueprint for life.

Second, hydrologists know that sorting by size and shape and specific gravity happens and that the oft-found ripple marks in the rock record is a clue of fast-moving flood waters.

Third, Darwinists say that the fossils show an evolution of creatures. So why are all these living fossils being found? If Coelecanths and Wollemi Pines are all found deep in the rocks and then disappear as other forms take their place, how is it they still exist? There are many creatures that are found in just one or two "epochs" in the fossil record but are also found now. Did they all get in a time machine or was the layering of the sedimentary rocks a matter of habitat, escapability and size?

I take the fact that you attempt to argue against the theory of evolution by focusing on another subject, abiogenesis, as a tacit admission that you can't actually come up with any solid arguments against the theory of evolution itself. Fine by me. So if your beef is with abiogenesis, why not conclude that God did it? The theory of evolution stands regardless, as it matches the evidence and there is no competing theory that does the same.

I have often pointed out that evolution has been tested and falsified so you have to have intentionally missed that part. Speciation is invariably associated with the loss of information. Mutation is nothing more than a bit player in the game. On rare occasion one mutation may pass on but one mutation in the genetic code that is exceedingly complex is not enough to even begin to make a new system, let alone a new organism. I will say it again, thousands of generations of fruit flies and millions of generations of bacteria have falsified Darwinism.

As for the origin of DNA not being solved yet, did you think that was some kind of secret? You make a fuss about Chaos Engineer "admitting" this, but who ever claimed that this had been 100% solved?

Here's the thing though: if you think you have the answer, and that answer happens to be "God did it", then you don't have any more information at all. And to make it worse, you have less (or no) curiosity. You've given yourself a reason not to investigate further.

But... you don't really have the answer as to how God did it, do you? That answer is "well, God just did it", right?


Hey, you understand that part, yes. God is the only answer here. Your so-called answer is to replace "God" with "Oops" and have "Oops" just keep on happening in every situation. What a lucky break that everything came from nothing and turned itself into billions of objects in the sky and billions of organisms under the Sun! Boy that Oops it just happened is a great example of science in action!

You see, Radar, if what you believe is true and God did create everything we see around us, he must have done it somehow. And it's that somehow that concerns scientists. How did this happen in nature?

It's at this point that scientists investigate and, little by little, expand human knowledge about the world around them. Creationists say "God did it", mistake that for an answer, and then try to shoot holes in the theory of evolution.

-- creeper

Funny how the terrible cumbersome disadvantage of believing in God did not hinder Newton or Linnaeus or Mendel or Kelvin, huh? In fact, scientists believed that a Logical God made the Universe and therefore a logical reason for how things work and logical systems of operation could be investigated and understood and that is the way most scientists did work and still do work. Operational science depends on a logical Universe and expects logical answers. It only makes sense that a Logical Mind designed everything. Otherwise why would things make sense? Why would random happenings produce non-random processes? Darwinists drive the vehicle God made when they call upon reason and logic.

Do a search on my blog on "rapid speciation" and then we will talk further.


Scientists don't claim to have all the answers...and even if they did have all the answers, they wouldn't admit it, because then they'd be out of a job! Anyway, there are other questions that are easy for scientists but hard for Creationists. Like: "How many of the 350,000 known species of beetle were on Noah's Ark, and how many evolved after the Flood? And why do we even need 350,000 species of beetle, anyway?"

No beetles would have been on Noah's Ark, the language of the Bible is specifically limited to land-based veterbrates and birds. All other creatures had the ability to last out a year-long flood by living in vast mats of plant and tree debris that would have floated on the surface during the 150 plus days that the water overflowed everything.

Instead of focusing on questions that science can't answer yet, I think it would be better to focus on the questions that science does a good job of answering, and then shoehorn that information into a Creationist model. (For example, the Flood story makes the most sense when we read it as the story of a memorable local flood, which was part of an oral history and had gotten greatly exaggerated before Moses finally wrote it down.)

Not really. We have rock layers that stretch across continents and are often very thick in places so that we are talking of millions of tons of rock comprising just one layer of an entire series of rock layers that are all typical of flood layering. Only a world-wide flood works in this case.

Besides, the knowledge we have does not have to be shoehorned into Creation. It is the simple solution, the one that does not need all sorts of incredible stretches of the imagination to explain the world in which we live. We will all be better off when science agrees that the Universe was designed and spends more time trying to use it better and safer and no more time on fruitless snipe hunts for the Chance Fairy's invisible tracks.

Let's address the speciation issue soon, perhaps Monday?

Tuesday, February 23, 2010

Hotmail scam is still just a scam. Phishing ploy a rerun from 2008.

Here we go again...Phishing never ends.

The following and any email like it is a fake:

Windows Live Hotmail Alert!!!!!!!!

Dear Account Owner

Due to the congestion in all Hotmail users and removal of all unused Hotmail Accounts, Hotmail would be shutting down all unused accounts. You will have to confirm your E-mail by filling out your Login Info below after clicking the reply botton or your account will be suspended within 24 hours for security reasons.

* Username: ................................
* Password: ................................
* Date of Birth:
* Country Or Territory: .................
The Windows Live Hotmail Team."

Other similar emails may seek to get your social security number or other personal information. Guys, PayPal and Bank of Whatever or Hotmail or other such companies NEVER try to get you to send them such information via unsecured emails. Never give out such information via email under any circumstances!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Monday, February 22, 2010

The CSI-entific method, Megabreccias, Interbedding and Rock Taffy!

THE CSI-entific method.

First, the ACTUAL scientific method now ignored by Darwinists:

Isaac Newton:
• Investigate the evidence
• Make a supposition
• Frame it as a testable hypothesis
• Test, test and retest
• Positive results – propose a law
• Other parties test repeatedly
• If all agree, then a law is established

CSI best to worst case scenario (standard procedure police investigative practices)

• Alerted to a crime
• Apprehend subject in act (win!)
• Witnesses (probably a win)
• Witness (good chance)
• Collection of evidence in any case
• Anaylysis of evidence for circumstantial assumptions (maybe)
• Attempt to “prove” those assumptions without witnesses (very difficult)

Evolution (Throw away Abiogenesis and Thermodynamics and begin the fairy tale)

• Aware of a state of existence
• Ignored witnesses (throughout Bible)
• Made suppositions
• Made hypotheses
• Test, test and retest
• No positive results
• Ignore the results and declare evolution to be factual
• Spin the evidence along with media brainwashing and fraud

Anthropic Global Warming (Lie to the world, win a Nobel Prize!)

• Presume mankind is warming the earth
• Change weather stations to get warmer readings
• Manipulate and make up evidence to produce “hockey stick graph”
• Find a buffoon to provide a front man for the product (Al Gore)
• Invest in carbon offset companies to reap fortune at world’s expense
• Try to cover up the fraud when exposed
• Claim that the warming is happening even as the proof rolls in against it
• Spin the evidence along with media brainwashing and fraud

Sunday, February 21, 2010

polystrate fossils? Can't be found?!

The top picture was one particular polystrate that was preserved at a length of 7.6 meters through several layers supposedly traversing hundreds of thousands of years at a minimum. How could there be so many polystrate fosssils and rock layers twisted like taffy and megabreccias found commonly in rock layers. Why are tracks and ripples and animals caught in the act of birth or in the process of eating? Catastrophism. Massive and world-wide catastrophism.

This link takes you to a site with more pictures including an explanation for the many polystrate "forests" found thrust upright or angled through thousands and even supposed millions of years by Darwinist thinking. Such tree trunks are found stripped of leaves and branches and often even bark and are then sorted and left in place.

Yes, we have found even human fossils in the "wrong" rock layers but these are hushed up by the powers that be in the "science" world. They would prefer to come up with faked "finds" like Ida and Pakicetus!

For those who would like to learn more rather than remain brainwashed.

Thursday, February 18, 2010

Let's try this again. Catastrophism and not Uniformitariansim!

Repeat and rinse:

In medical jargon, an “error cascade” is something very specific: a series of escalating errors in diagnosis or treatment, each one amplifying the effect of the previous one. This is a well established term in the medical literature.

There’s a slightly different term, information cascade

which is used to describe the propagation of beliefs and attitudes through crowd psychology. Information cascades occur because humans are social animals and tend to follow the behavior of those around them. When the social incentives are right, humans will substitute the judgment of others for their own.

A useful, related concept is preference falsification

the act of misrepresenting one’s desires or beliefs under perceived social pressures. Preference falsification amplifies informational cascades — humans don’t just substitute the judgment of others for their own, they talk themselves into beliefs most around them don’t actually hold but have become socially convinced they should claim to hold!

The prevailing Darwinist Paradigm starts science off on the wrong foot, so that they have a terrible time coming to relatively obvious conclusions if one is not encumbered with the error of thinking that there is no possiblity of a Creator God and not a chance fo a Noahic Flood. Yet eventually scientists slowly creep their way farther and farther from uniformitarianism and eventually perhaps they will rethink their original starting point.

Worldview predicts conclusions in advance to some extent. EG: The Grand Canyon and the slow but steady realization by modern geologists that it represents a catastrophic formation and not millions of years of steady erosion. Here is the latest on the subject from Bill Browning of RMCF:

Secular Geologists Subscribe to the Creationist "Breached-Dam Theory" for the Formation of the Grand Canyon PDF Print
Written by Mr. Bill Browning

This month, an episode of History Channel's series "How the Earth Was Made" was devoted to catastrophic flood origins for the Grand Canyon, a theory that has been promoted by creationist geologists for decades. The theory is attributed to a geologist at a community college in Phoenix, Dr. John Douglass, who presented his analysis at a symposium on the "Origin and Evolution" of the Canyon in the year 2000.

Details of the Breached Dam Theory, which released enormous amounts of lake water trapped east of the Canyon by the East Kaibab Upwarp of the Colorado Plateau, were given long before (1994) in Dr. Steven A. Austin's treatise on the Grand Canyon, "Grand Canyon, Monument to Catastrophe." (13) Chapter 5 includes probable shoreline maps of an ancient lake, produced by Dr. Ed Holroyd, an RMCF member, which show the enormous drainage basin (30,000 square miles) just east of the Grand Canyon. The hypothesized lake was dubbed "Canyonlands Lake" by Austin.

The creationist theory recognizes that after the Great Flood of Noah, the giant basin east of the Grand Canyon could have been filled by huge lakes caused by the natural dam formed by the Kaibab Upwarp (Figure 1). Catastrophic release of more water than Lake Michigan would have drained through a dam breach caused by overtopping of this dam and/or piping through the dam. The theory relies on the existence of other large-scale flood relicts such as the Grand Coulee and the Columbia Gorge of Washington State which were formed by the catastrophic drainage of Glacial Lake Missoula.

Breached-Dam Theory of Grand Canyon Formation

The breached-dam theory of Canyon formation is consistent with evidence of ancient lakes just east of the watershed; for example, the Bidahochi Formation, thought to have been deposited in "Lake Hopi" on the site of what is now the canyon of the Little Colorado River. The Bidahochi contains laminated silt and greenish clay layers with freshwater fish fossils and beaver remains.

Further evidence is given by landforms known to result from accelerated drainage activity, including underfit streams and the incised meanders of the San Juan River, which form only under conditions of large magnitude discharge. We also find relict landforms such as the sapping structures in side canyons and stable cliff structures with noticeable lack of talus, where the benches at cliff bases have apparently been swept clean by flooding. The cliffs are characterized by red mud stain accumulations, indicating that erosion today is extremely slow. According to Austin (13-102), Pliocene sediments associated with the delta of the Colorado River (Bousse Formation near the CA-AZ border and the Imperial Formation of the Salton Trough area) contain deltaic deposits which appear abruptly, and pebbles beneath the delta have local sources and indicate there was no large river in the area before the deltaic sands and mud was deposited. Therefore, the Pliocene establishment of the lower Colorado River seems confirmed. Taken together, we have significant evidence that Grand Canyon and the region upstream have been eroded chiefly by catastrophic agents.

When I visited the Grand Canyon in the early 90's, the politically correct story told by the Rangers at the Visitor Center was the so-called "precocious gully theory." Before the Canyon was formed, the Colorado River was thought to flow southward. The story was that a gully was cut eastward from the Hualapai drainage (western side of the Kaibab Upwarp ), which eventually eroded through the Upwarp and captured the Colorado River and took it westward through the gully, which became the Grand Canyon. This model allows for both an ancient river and a more recent canyon, which coincides with the prevailing dogma.

So what took geologists so long to come around to a flood model of Canyon formation? The concept of rapid breaching of the Kaibab Upwarp by drainage from ancient lakes has a long history. In fact, it is the oldest explanation of the formation of Grand Canyon, being contained in Havasupai Indian legends. The Indians still tell the story of how the Canyon was formed after the world was covered by a Great Flood. (Many such Flood traditions exist throughout ancient cultures worldwide.)

The following history of the development of the breached-dam theory is found on page 109 of Austin's book with further comments in italics.

* The concept was first documented by J.S. Newberry in 1861 (1).
* Hints followed in the work of Eliot Blackwelder in 1934 (2). According to Douglass, Blackwelder's insights have been unfortunately "downplayed" in the last half century. [True, except by creationists.].
* Geologic evidence of a large lake in northeastern Arizona ("Hopi Lake") was provided by Howel Williams in 1936, (3) which contains the Bidahochi Formation described by John Douglass in the History Channel account as the remains of an ancient lake which was the source of the initial flood waters. (Douglass does not mention Hopi Lake or Williams' discovery).
* As described by G.C. Bowles in 1978, tectonic activity was thought to have blocked the flow of the Colorado River, creating a large lake behind the Kaibab plateau, followed by piping failure. (4)
* Creationists were suggesting catastrophic drainage models beginning in the 1960's. Bernard E. Northrup proposed in 1968 that erosion of Grand Canyon was caused by release of trapped glacial melt waters in the post-Flood period centuries after Noah's Flood. His theory was updated in the First International Conference on Creationism, 1986, Proceedings, Vol.2 p.147.
* One of the most noteworthy early creationist statements of the breached dam theory appeared in the writings of Clifford L. Burdick in 1974.(5)
* Post Flood ponding of water east of Grand Canyon behind a tectonic upwarp was suggested as the cause leading to cutting the canyon by Steven A. Austin and John H. Whitmore in 1986. (6)
* Edmond W. Holroyd, III, recognized in 1986-7 that a lake bigger than one of the Great Lakes could be contained upstream of the Grand Canyon if the canyon were blocked at approximately the 5600 foot elevation (7)

* The breached-dam theory was described in 1988 by Steven A. Austin in a field guidebook used by ICR-sponsored rafters through the canyon. (8) The guidebook was updated in 1990 when I traveled through the Canyon with Dr. Austin on the ICR field trip.
* Later, after reading Austin's 1988 Field guidebook, Walter T. Brown, Jr., offered specific details to the theory, placing the lake boundary at 5700 ft. elevation, and naming the lake "Grand Lake."(9)

* Interesting field evidences for catastrophic drainage of lakes . . .were documented by Edmond W. Holroyd, III, in 1990. (10) The paper displays the boundaries of a hypothesized post-glacial lake comparable in size to Lake Superior at elevation of 5600 ft., and suggests that the lack of talus near its shoreline cliffs could be due to wave action in an ancient lake.
* A summary of some of these theories was published by E.L. Williams, J.R. Meyer, and G.W. Wolfrom in 1992. (11)
* Further comments were provided by Michael J. Oard in 1993. (12)
* Dr. Austin's book mentioned above containing a detailed dam-breach scenario for the formation of the canyon, and "Canyonlands Lake," was published in 1994. (13)
* There began a gradual increase in the acceptability of a catastrophic model of origins for the canyon, as exemplified by the paper by John Douglass, presented at a Symposium on Canyon origins in 2000 (14). The History Channel documentary gives Douglass full credit, calling the idea "His Own Theory" and "His Spillover Theory."

Only one of the many sources of documentation of the flood origin of Grand Canyon was considered in the paper by Douglass --the Blackwelder paper in 1934. In his paper, Douglass claims to have "reinvented" the theory in 1992 without knowledge of Blackwelder's work. What about the other dozen or so? Decades of creationist research, including Austin's landmark book, were ignored. One can only conjecture as to the reason(s), such as:

(1) Entrenched uniformitarianism, like that which caused the rejection of. J. Harlan Bretz's theory of the flood origin for the Scablands of Washington State. His ideas were finally accepted some forty years later, after many of the objectors passed away. (After all, a flood model might imply Noah's Flood, which had been censored from the field of geology since Darwin's day.)

(2) Perhaps creationists are considered religious fanatics and cannot be trusted to do good geology, or maybe because Austin's work was published by the Institute for Creation Research, rather than in a peer-reviewed journal.
(3) A lack of evidence for any ancient lakes upstream of the Colorado River ("Canyonlands Lake"). (Only the remains of Hopi Lake has adequate documentation, but it does not straddle the Colorado River.)
(4) Perhaps Douglass wanted to give his own name to the hypothesized lake, which he called "Lake Bidahochi", after the lake sediments found in Lake Hopi/Painted Desert region, where the breach could have first started, and which is now thought to contain the canyon of the Little Colorado. So now we have three names for the lake.
(5) Dr. Holroyd has stated (interview 12/22/09) that the dam is elevated a quarter-mile above the highest lake level, and that the spillover point does not coincide with the Canyon, but would be to the north near Vermillion cliffs. As yet, there is no explanation for why the flood took the path it did.

Based on analysis of a more recent flood formation on the Mojave River, CA, Douglass argues in his paper that the absence of lake sediments along the Colorado does not necessarily mean they were not there, and could have been lost during the rapid draining event and its aftermath His model .also recognizes recent analyses of the Bousse Formation (Colorado River delta in lower CA) which shows strontium concentrations which are consistent with inflows of the Colorado River, and give an event date of 6Ma (the accepted date of Canyon formation). Douglass places the dam/spillover point near Grandview Point on the South Rim, where he believes the western slope of the Kaibab Plateau was sufficient to initiate incision, being 1500m above base level at Lake Mead below. As the channel was catastrophically downcut, it would have worked its way back via "headword" erosion similar to what we see occurring today at Niagara Falls, as shown in animated graphics of the History Channel documentary.

Crucial to establishing validity of the lake spillover theory was the need to establish a date for the lake that is consistent with consensus dates for the formation of the canyon.. In the documentary, Douglass dramatically discovers some fresh water mollusk "fossils" in the lake sediments, which he claims date the lake bed at six million years. If one looks closely at the video, you can see that the clay is unconsolidated dirt, and the "fossils" are pristine and unmineralized, implying a much more recent burial.

Further evidence for the time frame was alleged in the documentary by John Pederson of Utah State, who dated sand deposits at Lees Ferry using luminescence (OSL) techniques and determined the cutting rate to be 1" per century, which is claimed to be consistent with cutting the canyon in about 5.5 My. This is very confusing from two standpoints: a) Sand sediments at Lees Ferry have nothing to do with the canyon, because it is upstream of the canyon. (The River actually flows on top of the Kaibab limestone, the top layer of the canyon. Sand deposits at Lees Ferry would have likely come from Glen canyon.) b) Douglass promotes a rapid, catastrophic incision of the canyon, not a uniformitarian approach based on " 1 inch per century."

So, in spite of the fact that the Canyon is now considered to be much more recent than originally believed (70Mya), models based on dating techniques still take enormous amounts of time to explain it.

So, how well accepted is this neo-catastrophist approach to modeling Grand Canyon? A review of the Proceedings of the GC Symposium of 2000 showed that the theory was published in a section named "Speculation." By contacting the Park Service, it was determined that Park geologists have not bought in to the idea. Therefore, it is a little too soon to celebrate. But it's great that a new theory close to the creationist model has been brought to the public eye, and the "age" of the canyon has been greatly shortened.

Granite Gorge, Grand Canyon

Granite Gorge, Grand Canyon. The river flow direction is away from the camera.
'Canyons' below Mount St Helens
One of the many small stream canyons in the valley below Mount St. Helens. River flow is toward the camera.

NOTE: My google image search found these images above and they orginated with jwoolfden. I had thought those were part of my collection obtained from another site. I am glad to give attribution. I had collected them previously and had them saved on my desktop and thus got them confused with another source but after research it is obvious that jwoolfden deserves the credit.

The differences in size are noted, but the aftermath of the Mt St Helens volcanic catastrophic events produced miniature canyons much like that of the Grand Canyon. Geologists have begun to take note and reconsider...

Historical References

(1) Newberry, J. S., "Geological Report," in J.C. Ives , Report Upon the Colorado River of the West, U.S. 36th Congress1st session, House Executive Doc. 90 Part 3 1861], 154 p.).
(2) Blackwelder, Eliot, "Origin of Colorado River, Geological Society of America Bulletin 45 1934] : 551-556.
(3) Williams, Howel, "Pliocene Volcanoes of the Navajo-Hopi Country", Geological Society of America Bulletin 47 [1936]: 111-172.
(4) G.C. Bowles, "Reinterpretation of Grand Canyon Morphology", United States Geological Survey Professional Paper 1100 [1978]: p.72.
(5) Burdick, Clifford L., The Canyon of Canyons Caldwell Idaho, Bible Science Association,1974, p.27
(6) Austin, Steven A. and Whitmore, John H. Grand Canyon Field Study Tour Guidebook , March 23-30, 1986, [Santee, Clalifornia, Institute for Creation Research, 1986], p.48.
(7) Holroyd, Edmond W., III "Missing Talus," Creation Research Society Quarterly 24 [1987]: 15,16.
(8) Austin, Steven A., Grand Canyon Field Tour Guidebook, April 9-16, 1988 [Santee, California, Institute for Creation Research, 1988 pp.50-54.
(9) Brown, Walter T, Jr., In the Beginning, [Phoenix, Arizona, Center for Scientific Creation, Fifth Edition, 1989, p. 83
(10) Holroyd, Edmund W., Jr.," Missing Talus on the Colorado Plateau," Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism, 2, [1990]: 115-128.
(11) Williams, E.L, . Meyer, J.R. , and Wolfrom G.W., "Erosion of the Grand Canyon of the Colorado River: Part III--Review of the Possible Formation of Basin and Lakes on Colorado Plateau and Different Climatic Conditions in the Past", Creation Research Society Quarterly 29 [1992]:18-24..
(12) Oard, Michael J., "Comments on the Breached Dam Theory for the Formation of the Grand Canyon," Creation Research Society Quarterly 30 [1993]: 39-46.
(13) Austin, Steven A., "Grand Canyon, Monument to Catastrophe," Institute for Creation Research, 1994, pp.92-104.
(14) Douglass, John and Meek, Norman, "Lake Overflow: An Alternative Hypothesis for Grand Canyon Incision and Development of the Colorado River," Proceedings of a Symposium on the Colorado River Origin and Evolution, Held at Grand Canyon National Park, June 2000, Edited by Young and Spamer, pp.199-204.

Courtesy of Rocky Mountain Creation Fellowship. Posted by permission.

Tuesday, February 16, 2010

Manmade Global Warming is dead - game, set and match!

Ah, the news media loves their impending disasters. I notice that some use Anthropic and some Anthropogenic and I hereby give up and either go with AGW or Manmade. Either way, it is another fairy tale from our naturalistic materialist atheistic "scientist" friends...

Thanks to Holoscience for the cartoon! Their article includes this excerpt:

"The Global Warming circus in Copenhagen was politics driven by a consensus that, by definition, has nothing to do with science. The apocalyptic nonsense that opened the meeting highlighted that fact. How many who attended or demonstrated at the meeting actually understand the (disputed) scientific grounds for the hysteria? Meanwhile, leading science journals allow skeptics of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) to be labelled “deniers” and refuse them the right of reply. It is doctrinaire denouncement, not science. It is the journal editors who are denying the scientific method by censoring debate. It is they who are peddling ideology.

Despite the glossy media image, modern science is a mess. When the fundamental concepts are false, technological progress merely provides science with a more efficient means for going backwards. At the same time, government and corporate funding promotes the rampant disease of specialism and fosters politicization of science with the inevitable warring factions and religious fervor.

“Science has become religion! ..although religion may have borrowed some of the jargon of science, science, more importantly, has adopted the methods of religion. This is the worst of both worlds.” —Halton Arp "


Yes and that same thought applies perfectly to the Darwinist paradigm that rules several scientific disciplines, often in complete contradiction to actual evidence. But that particular religion is going to be harder to take down. AGW is rapidly becoming a matter of shooting fish in a barrel, so to speak.

After you read the whole thing it will put the following news article in perspective for you. I have reprinted the article in entirety and linked it, below:

Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995

  • Data for vital 'hockey stick graph' has gone missing
  • There has been no global warming since 1995
  • Warming periods have happened before - but NOT due to man-made changes
Professor Phil Jones

Data: Professor Phil Jones admitted his record keeping is 'not as good as it should be'

The academic at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that he has trouble ‘keeping track’ of the information.

Colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers.

Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’.

The data is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ used by climate change advocates to support the theory.

Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.

And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.

The admissions will be seized on by sceptics as fresh evidence that there are serious flaws at the heart of the science of climate change and the orthodoxy that recent rises in temperature are largely man-made.

Professor Jones has been in the spotlight since he stepped down as director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit after the leaking of emails that sceptics claim show scientists were manipulating data.

The raw data, collected from hundreds of weather stations around the world and analysed by his unit, has been used for years to bolster efforts by the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to press governments to cut carbon dioxide emissions.

Following the leak of the emails, Professor Jones has been accused of ‘scientific fraud’ for allegedly deliberately suppressing information and refusing to share vital data with critics.

Discussing the interview, the BBC’s environmental analyst Roger Harrabin said he had spoken to colleagues of Professor Jones who had told him that his strengths included integrity and doggedness but not record-keeping and office tidying.

Mr Harrabin, who conducted the interview for the BBC’s website, said the professor had been collating tens of thousands of pieces of data from around the world to produce a coherent record of temperature change.

That material has been used to produce the ‘hockey stick graph’ which is relatively flat for centuries before rising steeply in recent decades.

According to Mr Harrabin, colleagues of Professor Jones said ‘his office is piled high with paper, fragments from over the years, tens of thousands of pieces of paper, and they suspect what happened was he took in the raw data to a central database and then let the pieces of paper go because he never realised that 20 years later he would be held to account over them’.

Asked by Mr Harrabin about these issues, Professor Jones admitted the lack of organisation in the system had contributed to his reluctance to share data with critics, which he regretted.

But he denied he had cheated over the data or unfairly influenced the scientific process, and said he still believed recent temperature rises were predominantly man-made.

Asked about whether he lost track of data, Professor Jones said: ‘There is some truth in that. We do have a trail of where the weather stations have come from but it’s probably not as good as it should be.

‘There’s a continual updating of the dataset. Keeping track of everything is difficult. Some countries will do lots of checking on their data then issue improved data, so it can be very difficult. We have improved but we have to improve more.’

He also agreed that there had been two periods which experienced similar warming, from 1910 to 1940 and from 1975 to 1998, but said these could be explained by natural phenomena whereas more recent warming could not.

He further admitted that in the last 15 years there had been no ‘statistically significant’ warming, although he argued this was a blip rather than the long-term trend.

And he said that the debate over whether the world could have been even warmer than now during the medieval period, when there is evidence of high temperatures in northern countries, was far from settled.

Sceptics believe there is strong evidence that the world was warmer between about 800 and 1300 AD than now because of evidence of high temperatures in northern countries.

But climate change advocates have dismissed this as false or only applying to the northern part of the world.

Professor Jones departed from this consensus when he said: ‘There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia.

‘For it to be global in extent, the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.

‘Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today, then obviously the late 20th Century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm than today, then the current warmth would be unprecedented.’

Sceptics said this was the first time a senior scientist working with the IPCC had admitted to the possibility that the Medieval Warming Period could have been global, and therefore the world could have been hotter then than now.

Professor Jones criticised those who complained he had not shared his data with them, saying they could always collate their own from publicly available material in the US. And he said the climate had not cooled ‘until recently – and then barely at all. The trend is a warming trend’.

Mr Harrabin told Radio 4’s Today programme that, despite the controversies, there still appeared to be no fundamental flaws in the majority scientific view that climate change was largely man-made.

But Dr Benny Pieser, director of the sceptical Global Warming Policy Foundation, said Professor Jones’s ‘excuses’ for his failure to share data were hollow as he had shared it with colleagues and ‘mates’.

He said that until all the data was released, sceptics could not test it to see if it supported the conclusions claimed by climate change advocates.

He added that the professor’s concessions over medieval warming were ‘significant’ because they were his first public admission that the science was not settled.

Read more:


So he is "disorganized" and unsure now. He "lost" relevant papers. Pretty soon they will have to admit that not only are we not warming, but we are actually cooling. This is like watching Bill Clinton going from "I did not have sex with that woman!" to sweating out impeachment proceedings. Soon they will have to admit all of it: The deliberate manipulation of data, the faked and spun weather station numbers and the placing of weather stations in intentionally hot areas to get higher readings plus the attempt to change data from centuries past. We can just sit and watch AGW self-destruct and guess how long it will take Obama and the mainstream news media to realize that this particular emperor has no clothes?

“In the end, science offers us the only way out of politics. And if we allow science to become politicized, then we are lost. We will enter the Internet version of the dark ages, an era of shifting fears and wild prejudices, transmitted to people who don't know any better. That's not a good future for the human race. That's our past.”

—Michael Crichton, “Environmentalism as Religion,” (A lecture at the Commonwealth Club, San Francisco, CA, September 15, 2003).

Monday, February 15, 2010

CRU versus Canals of Mars as defined by Bore Patch

Bore Patch is my newest blogroll link. Here is the article that was so impressive I had to give you the whole thing. Like some other bad science I fight in this venue, Global Warming Claimism is absolutely revealed to be a combination of Error Cascade and Elitism and old-fashioned nasty old greed! Enjoy and take a moment to go peruse his blog, in which he says "Internet Security and Firearms. Either way, helping you keep your muzzle clean. No extra charge."

Now presenting Bore Patch:

Monday, February 15, 2010

The Canals of Mars the Climate Research Unit

In 1877, the Italian astronomer Giovanni Schiaparelli observed faint lines on the surface of Mars. He called these lines canali - channels. When his findings were (mis) translated into English, they appeared as canals, and ignited the imagination of the world.

Rather than natural causes (as you would expect for channel), canal implies artificial construction. The thought of intelligent life in our solar system - an ancient race fighting a desperate battle for survival on a dying planet - caused legions of astronomers to rush to their telescopes. Others reported that they also saw canals. Some published maps. But nobody saw as many canals, or published such detailed maps, as Percival Lowell from his Flagstaff observatory, whose map appears here.

It wasn't just scientists whose imaginations were captured by the Martians. The press promoted the story almost hysterically, giving Orson Wells his opportunity to create mass panic with his radio dramatization of H. G. Wells' novel The War of the Worlds. But the Barsoom novels of Edgar Rice Burroughs were the best.

John Carter was the human hero, mysteriously transported to Mars. Caught up in the epic battles there, as the slow drying of the planet led to desperate wars among the populations, his adventures amidst beautiful Martian princesses and noble Martian warriors fired the imagination of this young boy, back around 1969.

Alas, by then we knew that it was all impossible. Mariner 4 reached Mars in 1965, and photographed the entire planet from orbit. No castles holding Martian princesses, no Orovar cities, and most definitely no Zodangan canals. So how did the internal scientific community spend three decades chasing a Will o' the Wisp? I mean, this stuff was peer reviewed.

Eric Raymond has an interesting thought that seems to apply to both the science of Mars and the current theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming (the theory that human production of Carbon Dioxide is causing the planet to warm). Most scientists are caught up in an error cascade:
A scientific error cascade happens when researchers substitute the reports or judgment of more senior and famous researchers for their own, and incorrectly conclude that their own work is erroneous or must be trimmed to fit a “consensus” view.


In extreme cases, entire fields of inquiry can go down a rathole for years because almost everyone has preference-falsified almost everyone else into submission to a “scientific consensus” theory that is (a) widely but privately disbelieved, and (b) doesn’t predict or retrodict observed facts at all well. In the worst case, the field will become pathologized — scientific fraud will spread like dry rot among workers overinvested in the “consensus” view and scrambling to prop it up. Yes, anthropogenic global warming, I’m looking at you!
When a few influential scientists publish important work, younger scientists will often defer to "established" results that contradict their own, even is the established results are wrong. Science tends to self correct this sort of thing, although it can take a while - the mass of the electron was incorrectly specified for years and years, because everyone who measured it got a different result than Robert Millikan. Millikan had received the Nobel Prize, and they hadn't, so their results "had to be wrong".

And so with AGW. Strong evidence opposing it "can't be right" and weak evidence supporting it "must be right", and as a result, AGW is an astonishingly weak theory. In the last twenty years its proponents have made many predictions, most of which have been falsified. Michael Mann said that the Medieval Warm Period wasn't warm, contradicting recorded evidence from the period like the Domesday Book that showed wine vinyards in England in the eleventh century. AGW computer models predicted a warm layer in the middle Troposphere in the tropics; MIT's Jim Lindzen and others looked and looked - no warm zone. NOAA's Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN) is the most comprehensive store of historical climate data; people are finding that the data has been frequently, consistently, and mysteriously adjusted so that older temperatures are lowered below what the thermometer readings showed, and recent temperatures are raised above what the thermometer readings showed.

It's an error cascade of epic proportions. The situation is almost like an astronomer in 1965 continuing to insist that the Mariner 5 pictures are irrelevant, because there is a mountain of peer-reviewed literature supporting Ptarth hydrological engineering. Phil Jones of the CRU admits that the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today, and that the climate is not getting warmer lately - despite the theory predictions, and that his data is a mess (which is why he refused to release it, even after a Freedom Of Information Act request).

And yet the Climate Scientists still see canals.

Raymond points out why:

There an important difference between the AGW rathole and the others, though. Errors in the mass of the electron, or the human chromosome count, or structural analyses of obscure languages, don’t have political consequences (I chose Chomsky, who is definitely politically active, in part to sharpen this point). AGW theory most certainly does have political consequences; in fact, it becomes clearer by the day that the IPCC assessment reports were fraudulently designed to fit the desired political consequences rather than being based on anything so mundane and unhelpful as observed facts.

When a field of science is co-opted for political ends, the stakes for diverging from the “consensus” point of view become much higher. If politicians have staked their prestige and/or hopes for advancement on being the ones to fix a crisis, they don’t like to hear that “Oops! There is no crisis!” — and where that preference leads, grant money follows. When politics co-opts a field that is in the grip of an error cascade, the effect is to tighten that grip to the strangling point.

Eisenhower famously warmed of the growing Military-Industrial Complex, an alliance between the Government and Industry to justify and fund continuing increases in Government and its Industry allies. Follow the Money. How is this not identical to what we see happening in climate science? Billions of dollars of Government grant funding flowing to academic organizations, whose research (surprise!) provides justification for large Government programs like Cap And Trade. Government funding maintains the momentum of the error cascade.

The challenges to the AGW "consensus" have almost all come from outside of this "Environment-Academic Complex", as they would have to. Outsiders are free to report what the data actually say, without fear of losing their funding. As Raymond said:
If politicians have staked their prestige and/or hopes for advancement on being the ones to fix a crisis, they don’t like to hear that “Oops! There is no crisis!”
Thus the emphasis demonstrated by the ClimateGate emails on controlling the Peer Review process. If the narrative can't be directed at the front end, it must be channeled at the back end. The canali of the modern scientific process are indeed man-made.

And so, the debate isn't about science at all, any more than the debate over the XM2001 Crusader self-propelled Howitzer was about defense. I expect to hear any day that NOAA plans to appoint Dejah Thoris to head the new office of Climate Change.

I hope they don't make her wear a brass bikini. It's wouldn't provide the dignity that the office demands.

Hint: click on every link or you will miss a lot of good scientific data and some fun things like this:

Sunday, February 14, 2010

How dumb can politicians get? Climate Change Alarmists cannot see nose in front of face, film at eleven!

Freeman Dyson - "IT WAS FOUR YEARS AGO that Dyson began publicly stating his doubts about climate change. Speaking at the Frederick S. Pardee Center for the Study of the Longer-Range Future at Boston University, Dyson announced that “all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated.”

Since then he has only heated up his misgivings, declaring in a 2007 interview with that “the fact that the climate is getting warmer doesn’t scare me at all” and writing in an essay for The New York Review of Books, the left-leaning publication that is to gravitas what the Beagle was to Darwin, that climate change has become an “obsession” — the primary article of faith for “a worldwide secular religion” known as environmentalism. Among those he considers true believers, Dyson has been particularly dismissive of Al Gore, whom Dyson calls climate change’s “chief propagandist,” and James Hansen, the head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York and an adviser to Gore’s film, “An Inconvenient Truth.” Dyson accuses them of relying too heavily on computer-generated climate models that foresee a Grand Guignol of imminent world devastation as icecaps melt, oceans rise and storms and plagues sweep the earth, and he blames the pair’s “lousy science” for “distracting public attention” from “more serious and more immediate dangers to the planet.”


The world should have figured out that there is no global warming problem and yet...

This an actual Associated Press news release from last week: Why they have not been forced to admit that the acronym stands for Approved Propaganda is beyond comprehension, but let us look at this ridiculous announcement!

"WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration on Monday proposed a new agency to study and report on the changing climate, which has drawn concern among many scientists in recent years.

Commerce Secretary Gary Locke and Jane Lubchenco, head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, announced NOAA will set up the new Climate Service to operate in tandem with NOAA's National Weather Service and National Ocean Service.

"Whether we like it or not, climate change represents a real threat," Locke said Monday at a news conference."

Well, that is a completely ludicrous statement. Climate changes every day. Why we would need yet another agency (more money, more government, more regulations? Yeah, that is what we need! Sarcasm intended)!? If you are a snowman and it is going to be 70 degrees fahrenheit tomorrow, that is a real threat. If you make a living as a bikini model and you have a shoot scheduled for a beach in Virginia (and there are not many good ones there) then unless you love snow and cold then climate change today is a big threat. Income change is a threat. Health change is a threat. Change always includes inherent risks. Locke's statement is, in the end, supposed to sound ominous but is actually meaningless.

"Lubchenco added, "Climate change is real, it's happening now." She said climate information is vital to the wind power industry, coastal community planning, fishermen and fishery managers, farmers and public health officials."

Aye, lassie, we need to watch the weather report to know if it is going to rain or snow or so on. Not that the weather report is accurate but it is usually pretty close if they do not try to predict more than maybe a week ahead of time. But we already have an agency for that, news stations with weather reporters (One local meteorologist is actually named Amy Freeze) who are often pretty ladies with big maps and nice smiles. Meteorologists study the weather to make short-term predictions and not one of them can render an accurate forecast for a year from now.

Well, unless you want the good old "fair to partly cloudy with a chance of precipitation and increased clouds, sunrise in the morning with sunset towards evening and seasonable temperatures." You like that?

"NOAA recently reported that the decade of 2000-2009 was the warmest on record worldwide; the previous warmest decade was the 1990s. Many atmospheric scientists believe that global warming is largely due to human actions, adding gases to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels such as coal and natural gas."

No, no, a thousand times no! How clueless is the Obama Administration? How clueless is the AP? More important, how clueless do they think the public is? We now know that the decade of 2000-2009 is not only not the warmest on record but is not even close. In fact, the global climate is cooling. Climategate exposed the scientists who had been cooking the books and changing data in order to promote their agenda. That entire statement is made by either a liar or an idiot. The warmest weather of the 20th century was more likely to be a year in the 1930's than the 1990's and the 21st century is one of declining global temperatures.

Small Dead Animals - small dead animals

"Pleasing your enemies does not turn them into friends."

"Hide the Decline" - the Climategate links
Special Investigation: an excellent summary for those new to Climategate.

How Canadian thermometers were "taken out and shot".

"Researchers and leaders from around the world met last month in Denmark to discuss ways to reduce climate-warming emissions, and a follow-up session is planned for later this year in Mexico. But a U.N. report that preceded the conference in Copenhagen has been widely disputed after much of the data in it was found to have been gathered unscientifically."

Well, duh. Unscientifically? How about a conspiracy and a widespread one at that to promote intentional fraudulent data in order to promote an agenda of more government control of business and energy sources? How about a conspiracy to enrich crooks like Al Gore who promoted a patently false alarmist claim about a global disaster in progress while quickly investing in carbon offset companies in order to make millions of dollars in profit on the misery of others? While third world nations would remain in poverty and the US economy would be crippled terribly, Al could afford to buy another private jet and perhaps another mansion in yet another location? How about THAT for unscientific? Rod Blagoevich was unscientific by that definition. John Dillinger was unscientific.

Go ahead and download this document and read, if you dare to know anything about what is and is not a possible crisis that the world needs to deal with right now.

Go to this website to see actual scientific enquiry into this subject.

"More and more people are asking for more and more information about climate and how it's going to affect them," Lubchenco explained. So officials decided to combine climate operations into a single unit.

Portions of the Weather Service that have been studying climate, as well as offices from some other NOAA agencies, will be transferred to the new NOAA Climate Service.

The new agency will initially be led by Thomas Karl, director of the current National Climatic Data Center. The Climate Service will be headquartered in Washington and will have six regional directors across the country."

Translation: More government, more of our money being thrown away for no good reason.

"Lubchenco also announced a new NOAA climate portal on the Internet to collect a vast array of climatic data from NOAA and other sources. It will be "one-stop shopping into a world of climate information," she said.

Creation of the Climate Service requires a series of steps, including congressional committee approval. But if all goes well, it should be finished by the end of the year, officials said.

In recent years, a widespread private weather forecasting industry has grown up around the National Weather Service, and Lubchenco said she anticipates growth of private climate-related business around the new agency."

Give me a break! In no way is a new government agency going to wind up encouraging private climate-related business in any meaningful way. Allow free enterprise to work and take the idiotic agencies out of the way and we will use the resources available for us within US borders and territorial waters to get oil and gas and coal to boost business now and develop all sorts of alternate forms of energy (especially conversion of refuse into fuel) by private enterprise.

No government agency supported Duryea or Ford or Oldsmobile as they developed a viable alternative to the horse as a mode of transportation around the turn of the 19th-to-20th century. The Wright brothers and not some federal bureau of flight successfully began the era of heavier-than-air flight. Entrepreneurs, inventors and scientists have been responsible for the vast majority of great inventions and innovations during the history of mankind. Unfortunately the government in the form of the EPA especially has been a damper on innovation and invention and a hindrance to the best use of our resources.

Hopefully most of my readers can use the Google search engine to research a few things that science DOES know about climate change:

1) The climate warms and cools and it has been doing it for all of recorded human history. With or without the burning of fossil fuels.

2) One big volcanic eruption does more to change a world climactic situation than all the industrial output of the United States in a year's time.

3) Sea levels go up and down and have been doing so for centuries. And no, we do not mean the tidal phenomenon.

4) The evidence of history tells us that if global warming was coming we should be rejoicing and celebrating rather than being worried about it! The last major warming period was a time of increased prosperity for most of the globe.

5) The sun is the major driver of both warming and cooling cycles. More solar activity = warming. Less solar activity = cooling.

6) The global climate is a remarkable in that it has checks and balances built in - more clouds mean more precipitation but also shield the ground from direct sunlight, cooling the globe. But sometimes cloud cover holds warmth underneath, warming a portion of the globe. Heavy snow covers reflect much sunlight back at the sun, cooling the globe. Cooling temperatures then cause less moisture and then less cloud cover, warming the globe, etc. When more warmth produces one condition, then another system begins to operate to adjust things back the other way. Ocean currents and clouds and fresh water stored as glaciers and snow cover and many many other factors all work in concert to balance the forces of the sun and keep the world in a pretty narrow band of temperature ranges.

7) CO2 does rise along with warmth but it follows rather than proceeds, thus making it a result rather than a cause.

8) El Nino patterns in the Pacific Ocean often cause weather conditions that are surprising and damaging and we still do not know exactly what causes El Nino cycles nor do we have any good idea how to help either cause or stop them. Subterranean and deep ocean forces also have some part in the big picture. We don't understand the entire climate much better than we do quantum mechanics. We have only scratched the surface of understanding how the global climate works.

9) The most important thing to know is that the famous "hockey stick graph" was as fake as Dan Rather's Bush papers and so is the science presented by the IPCC that was obtained from the CRU. We also know that weather reporting stations in the USA and Canada have been intentionally "gamed" in numerous ways to try to present a warming trend that did not in fact exist.

10) Climate Change Alarmists show all the signs of having a religious belief system rather than a fact-based point of view. They keep claiming that global warming is a problem and they have tried to fake evidence to promote this and yet many government officials seem to think they must at least appear to believe this garbage in order to keep the news media on their side. Very few have the sense or the guts to admit that science does not know what is going to happen long range but we do know that global warming is NOT a problem in part because we are in a cooling period. See how easy that is? It is cooling right now. You and I cannot change that. You got a complaint, call the sun and tell it to get working harder before we have another little ice age.