Search This Blog

Wednesday, May 28, 2014

Evolutionary Scientists Locked Into Preconceptions

One fact of life is that nobody is unbiased. Some people have the misconception that scientists find data and then follow where the evidence leads. That is the opposite of the truth, and contrary to human nature. People have ideas and want to see if they can find evidence to support them.

Michelle Studer provided me with this photo of horses with blinders (also called blinkers). She added, "They see only what the master wants them to see. We also teach them to ignore other stimulation such as sound and touch. Programming at its finest. Some harness racers also wear a shadow roll in their nose, so their vision is obscured further."
Unfortunately, evolutionary scientists interpret evidence through erroneous presuppositions, and wear blinders when it comes to contrary data. When the evidence does not support evolution or "deep time", they tend to go through bizarre contortions to force observed data to fit their models.
Dinosaurs have allegedly been extinct for millions of years and the fossils have fully turned to stone. There "should not" be soft tissues and red blood cells, but evolutionary science-deniers do not want to accept the facts. And extinct shouldn't stink. However, fossils tend to be aromatic at times. 
The reactions of scientists to cadaverous smells from fossils as well as finding blood cells, blood vessels and proteins like collagen in them is a bit like those cartoon characters with a bewildered look in their eyes who can’t see the obvious—even though the other characters and the audience can see it all too easily. 
If one could still smell these dead sea creatures then they couldn’t possibly be millions of years old. Dr Mary Schweitzer and others who report such occurrences—if they did not have their evolutionary blinkers on—might have concluded (as did your students) that fossils from which smells emanate could not be millions of years old.
It’s worthwhile going back over some of the developments since Dr Schweitzer’s initial findings in the 1990s which shocked evolutionists because the ‘shocks’ have kept coming.
You can read the rest of "Blinkered scientists look past the obvious", in context, here. But it's best to leave off your blinders so you can see more clearly.

Monday, May 26, 2014

We were never the bad guys - a salute to our troops on Memorial Day!

Thank you to all my fellow veterans of military service, both those who saw action or supported those in action both stateside and overseas.   You agreed to put yourselves in harm's way for the sake of a greater good, the nation which we served in uniform and also the concept of human freedom from oppression.

We were never the bad guys.  We never fought other nations to destroy them, we defended ourselves and helped defend others.

We owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to our heroes of the past - those who gave their lives to form our nation, the United States Of America and all who served in war thereafter.  Many fell in battle and many died in peace long after but not without first knowing the ways of war and so often the horrors of war.  It is no small thing to step across the line to swear service to your country and to defend her and obey the orders of your commanders even at the cost of your life.

I suffer from severe pain and have done little blogging over recent months.  A surgery may enable me to rehabilitate and recover so that I may do simple things like take a walk or exercise.  A few months later I may be able to play half-court basketball and doubles tennis.  I truly have been mistreated at the hands of the FDA and I am not alone...many people who have severe pain have been denied pain medications prescribed by their doctors and forced to go to pain centers where profits for the pain center seem to outweigh any regard for the patient.  That has been my experience.  Only major surgery can allow me to find a way to exercise and rehabilitate and live a nearly normal life.   I work from home and then collapse.  Thanks for my friend who has been posting here, the Piltdown Superman, who has been keeping the blog warm as I wait for surgical help that may save my life, for I will indeed die from the stress of pain and the lack of exercise if something is not done.

The following is informed opinion.

As a nation, we first had to fight to form and protect our new republic and also soon realized the pirates of the Barbary Coast required an expansion of what was at first a civilian militia who stepped into service when the nation needed them.  So we had at first an Army and a Navy and then the Marines were formed.  Is it not ironic and deplorable that Islamic pirates are still attacking and grabbing ships and negotiating for the lives of the crew and the ships themselves for millions of dollars?  It would be great if we had a Commander-In-Chief who had a clue about warfare at all and cared about such matters, would it not?

An 18th Century nation became a 19th Century military power at the end of the Century...but not before we fought among ourselves during the Civil War.

Today's substandard public schools make the Civil War very simplistic - a fight to free slaves and save the nation from being cut in twain.  However, the slavery issue was just one of many issues that lit the spark of war.  States rights was chief among the contentious topics that eventually caused the Confederacy to secede from the Union.   In fact the desire of the Southeastern States to be able to sell their goods overseas was the key issue, particularly to England, rather than having to sell to the North because of tariffs levied by the Federal Government that made the crops of the South less profitable.  The Southern States believed that the North was robbing them by fiat, in some ways the same issue that caused the Colonies to rebel against England and form the USA in the first place.

The South believed they had the right to secede and the North disagreed.  Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican President, was a strong believer in freedom for slaves and also believed that he was elected to preserve the Union at any cost and certainly stop the spread of slavery to the West.  Men of the South primarily saw their allegiance to their State first and the Confederacy as a whole second.   Many of those of the North also saw allegiance to their home State first.  Thus, so many units were drawn from and named for the State from which they were culled.   In retrospect, the majority of those who fought on both sides believed their cause was just.  The end of slavery was a great victory for all Americans...if only the idiocy of Darwinism and Eugenics did not keep the lies of superior and inferior races alive in the minds of men.

In the 20th Century, we found ourselves becoming involved in a war that began as European squabbles among family members who also just happened to be "royalty" in the case of WWI.   The assassination of an Archduke is given as the spark that lit the flames of war.   But truly the archaic notion of royal families that were destined by God to rule over the rest of humanity was a preposterous and outdated notion that came from an incestuous relationship between the royals and a false "church" that was primarily about power and money rather than relationship with God.  The days of kings and queens and those of their ilk had long passed their expiration date.  We decided to ramp up our aid to the side of the Allies against the Central Powers and added boots on the ground, ships at sea and the rudimentary fighting in the air as well and, in doing so, sealed the victory for the Allies.  War or no war, the fall of the Russian Czar and the end of royals as the rulers of nations was inevitable.   The very vindictive terms of Armistice sewed the seeds of another World War to come and the Spanish Flu killed off perhaps as much as 5% of the population of the world so that the war years were a terrible punch to humanity's nose.   Those who survived the war and the flu were left horrified and often traumatized by the experience.  Many believed WWI was the Geat War, the war to end all wars.   Wrong!

Yet it only took a handful of power-hungry madmen to begin yet another World War within about one generation of the first.  The USA again came along to give aid to the Allied forces and later we were thrust into the war by the attack on Pearl Harbor.  WWII was a long, hard fight but we again prevailed.  We prevailed in part because the Emperor of Japan and Adolf Hitler of Germany were both egomaniacs who, had they used their strategic advantages would have secured control of Europe and Asia before the USA would have decided to make an attempt to stop them.  But Hitler was stupid enough to attack his supposed ally, the Soviet Union, when his forces were taking control of Europe and Northern Africa with relative ease.  Hirohito was stupid enough to attack Pearl Harbor, thinking that supposedly "neutralizing" the US Navy in the Pacific would keep us from interfering in his conquest of Asia and the Japanese side of the ocean.  Hitler overplayed his hand and found himself being stopped by the Russian winter and then pounded from another front in Europe when he could have secured his military gains and perhaps taken on the Soviets years later. Attacking Pearl Harbor awakened Americans to the war in a way that caused us to put our resources fully into taking down the Japanese and also fighting and helping to defeat Hitler and Mussolini.

We then came alongside allies to save South Korea by being overrun by Commies from the North and the Chinese.  We saw in the Korean War that waging war that the American population did not thoroughly understand or support was futile.  At least those who took part in either war or both understood that war is all in or nothing.   There is no half-hearted warfare that can truly succeed.

Vietnam is the conflict where the lies of the politically correct come to roost.   We were never obliged to defend the government of Vietnam, we were simply allies of France and France had finally abandoned their hold on the region and left a dicey government behind them.  President John F. Kennedy initially agreed with his predecessor, Dwight Eisenhower, who had been a 5-star general during WWII and Supreme Commander of the European Allied forces.  John Kennedy had of course been an LTJG, commanding PT boats (PT-109 has been addressed on this blog previously) in the Pacific.  The point was that both men, veterans of war, had thought it wise to have advisers there to both help train troops and make assessments of the military and political situation for intelligence purposes.  

JFK decided it was time to withdraw all American troops and signed an executive order to that effect.  He was assassinated before the order was carried out and Lyndon Baines Johnson  then escalated the war and turned it into a pointless human meat-grinder.  As many of the veterans of the war will attest, they kept winning every battle and taking every objective given to them.  But Vietnam was not a war in which taking territory was a victory. The Vietcong would withdraw over the border to Cambodia or to the North and then regroup and infiltrate the territory that our troops had "won" previously, making the way in which the war was being waged pointless.

There were two ways to handle Vietnam:  Either let the people be ruled by whoever won the tussle between the government the French left behind and the forces loyal to Ho Chi Min or absolutely bomb the enemy to smithereens wherever they happened to be within Vietnam or Cambodia.  JFK decided to withdraw and he was killed.  Then in 1968, when Robert Kennedy had won the Democratic nomination for President in California, he also was assassinated.  RFK had run on a platform which included the withdrawal of troops from Vietnam.  Were the Kennedys murdered to allow the Vietnam War to go on and on and on?

John and Robert Kennedy had a brother, Joseph Jr, a bomber pilot who died in the air over England in 1944 while serving in WWII in the European campaign.  Neither JFK nor RFK saw war as unnecessary but both believed that wars were the last resort and not the first course of action.   JFK demonstrated this by standing up to Russia during the Cuban Missile Crisis and earning the grudging respect of Nikita Khrushchev in the process.  He did not start WWIII but he did stand his ground and forced the enemy to either start warfare or back down.  Krushchev backed down.

As a child I went door-to-door with Goldwater pamphlets, asserting that electing LBJ would be a vote for continuing a war that should not be and that as a grade schooler, I was sure I would be drafted because if LBJ was elected the war would grow and grow...and it did.  LBJ agreed with the Ivy League elitists and his big-money supporters.   There is big money to be made during wartime.  Why do you think Switzerland was allowed to remain neutral even when war was being waged all around it?

LBJ was elected and I was indeed drafted and chose to enlist after being drafted.  I remember watching the helicopters rescuing the last Marines from the Saigon government center's roof...thinking how angry I would be if one of my loved ones had died in Vietnam and now knowing how futile their efforts had been.  So many brave young troops died in a cause that may have been admirable but in a way that was a travesty.  My respect and condolences to all who served in Vietnam...you were heroes even if your Commander-In-Chief was an unprincipled political hack!

I suspect both John and Robert Kennedy were killed so that the war in Vietnam would be escalated by LBJ (who was an incredibly evil person bereft of any real morality) and sustained by Richard Nixon, a man whose ego would not allow him to be seen as an appeaser by withdrawing from Vietnam.  In retrospect, I now consider both Robert and John Kennedy as casualties of war.

The atrocious and cowardly attacks of 9/11 that took down the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York caused the USA and their allies to wage war in Iraq and Afghanistan.  We'd stopped before going towards Iraq during Desert Storm when we could have and perhaps should have kept going on...but we did stop and 9/11 did happen.  My own son joined the Army because he wanted to be part of the effort to wipe out the Islamic terrorists wherever they might be.  He served in Afghanistan and two of my "Godsons" served in Iraq.  Thankfully they all came home from every deployment.  Just as my son came home from Afghanistan, his grandfathers both came home from WWII and Korea respectively.

So I am a thankful man.  My ancestors lived through wars to preserve my nation and to defend freedom for others and my son came home from war unscathed.  God bless America!





Wednesday, May 21, 2014

Burn the Witches — I Mean, Global Warming Deniers!


It is interesting that proponents of global warming (or "global climate change") tell us that (a) there is a consensus, which is false, and (b) that it is not a political movement, which is also false. Those of us who believe in the free speech of "global warming deniers" are bullied along with the scientists who do say that humans are not the cause of global warming, which is inconsequential or even nonexistent.

In December 2006, Heidi Cullen, the "climate expert" at The Weather Channel, said:
Meteorologists are among the few people trained in the sciences who are permitted regular access to our living rooms. And in that sense, they owe it to their audience to distinguish between solid, peer-reviewed science and junk political controversy. If a meteorologist can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn't give them a Seal of Approval. Clearly, the AMS doesn't agree that global warming can be blamed on cyclical weather patterns. It's like allowing a meteorologist to go on-air and say that hurricanes rotate clockwise and tsunamis are caused by the weather. It's not a political statement...it's just an incorrect statement.

I agree with every meteorologist who says the topic of global warming has gotten too political. But that's why talking about the science is so important!
It appears that global warming is not a consensus among meteorologists because she felt the need to speak up on this. It is also political because she wanted to have a kind of purge against those meteorologists who dared to go against the favored view!

More recently, free speech has been blatantly threatened with stronger measures: Jail. Politicians (who often should be jailed for tangible crimes) should be imprisoned for denying global warming. Using "science" as a tool for bullying is another sign of the rising neo-fascism. Say what those in control want to hear or suffer the consequences. David Suzuki, who referred to humans as "maggots", is active in the war on humans.
Left-wing extremism has a home at PBS – and that home, to be specific, is the set of Moyers & Company. Host Bill Moyers kicked off Sunday’s episode with a flashback to the previous week’s broadcast, in which scientist and environmental activist David Suzuki had announced that he believes society should literally punish politicians who don’t believe in global warming. 
This is what Suzuki told Moyers:
No, you can watch the video clip and read the article at "Lefty Scientist: Jail Pols Who Deny Global Warming; PBS Host Worries There's Lack of Prison Space".

Addendum from the "Ministry of Thanks for Proving Us Right": People had to voice their uninformed opinion, did not deal with the topic, attacked people, and were self-contradictory. These comments were posted at Google Plus:






Sunday, May 11, 2014

Sharing the thoughts of another...Global Dumbing shall continue!

Where is that Radar?  My blogging friend has been keeping this blog warm as I get closer to a surgery date. I am so very much in his debit!   

William Lightner's thoughts in answering a typical Climate Fear-Monger were too good to keep to myself! Plus my injury-imposed sequester in my home is beginning to help me a bit so I may be up to blogging again soon.  So with no further ado, sans editing, Mr. Lightner has the floor...

WILLIAM LIGHTNER: From Quora...

How do we talk about 'climate change' (the politically correct term of the week for the phenomenon)?  We ask: "Do you *believe* in Climate Change" (emphasis acknowledged). 

"Climate Change debate" has become the "Evolution debate" of the Left; most especially the Far Left, and the Democratic Party has jumped on the bandwagon in full measure because it has proven so fruitful in bringing left-leaning voters to the polls.

The actual science, however, is not at all clear.  Yes, CO2 is going up...some.  Yes, the world is getting warmer...some.  This week (year, decade, etc.) 

I waited for years for the evaluation of old-growth forest as a carbon sink to be proven, as predicted by Global Warming activists (and they are all *activists*, not *scientists*).  The result:  old-growth forest is a net CO2 source.

Oops.

So, it must be going in the oceans right?  Another 5-year wait:

Nope.

"97% of all scientists believe in Climate Change".  Look that phrase up on the Internet and you'll find an interesting (and apparently ignored) little write-up on where that number came from (assuming the document is correct and valid, the result was clearly fraudulent, or at least a fraudulent abuse of the very "iffy" survey that was not presented to those specifically-selected scientists in a manner intended to elicite a studied answer).

Every time the IOCC makes an announcement they are "more certain than ever"...that the results point to a lower-than-expected curve in temperature increases, that is a lower curve than the last time they made an announcement.  But it is Still Going Up!  That's what's important!

The data that all these climate-change scientists base their numbers on is suspect.  Why?  Because a great many of the recording stations that were originally "out in the wild" are now in the middle of parking lots (and such-like).   Many climatologists have refused (or did for a long time) to make corrections to their data because the person(s) providing notification (the people who maintain the stations) are not 'climatologists'.

When data finally became available from the satellite intended to track ocean depth increase and temperature changes it was found not to match any existing model.  The climatologist response?  Near screaming deprecations on the engineer responsible for pulling & checking the data for not (near as I could tell) correcting their models.  Which (a) wasn't his job, and (b) shows clearly how at least *some* Climate Change proponents view and understand (if you can call it that) science.

Compare the behavior of Climate Change proponents with that of Cosmologists over the last 20 years:

Change the entire underpinnings of what we understand? (The universe is not only expanding, it is accelerating! : Neat!  We'll have to change the text books!) (Neutrinos move faster than light!:  Really?  Neat!  We'll have to change the text books! Nope, that's wrong.  Darn.  Good thing we haven't published, yet.  Next?  God I Love This Job!)

Suggest that Climate Change might not be supported by the science?  (That person is *not* a Scientist!  I can fix that.  Let me change my model!  You're wrong!  You're an idiot! We're all gonna die!)

How about the interesting littel detail that the scientists campaigning for Climate Change have their own, closed little group that suffers (according to an outside audit) from a serious lack of real peer review by other (I tend to insert "real") scientists  (You have to belong to the group to propose papers.  Proposing a non-supporting paper gets you banned from the group).  Or the fact that proving that a leading Climate Change proponent got his numbers wrong (the guy, I am led to understand, who also floated that '97% of scientists" "study") and has refused to either correct his work or change his rhetoric.

Which would you tend to (dare I say it?) believe?

Is the world getting warmer?  Possibly.  To quote Yoda:  "Difficult to say".  Will it continue to do so?   I could quote Yoda again, about telling the future.  I could also point out that these summers (and winters) lately are a lot more like the seasons of my youth.  When we were worried about the next Ice Age (I know that's been debunked as "real science" at the time, but it was nonetheless present in the "popular" science of the time.

The world has been warmer (much) in the past than it is now, and has survived just fine.  It does not appear about to collapse into a duplicate of Venus.  Human impact on greenhouse gasses is a tremendous amount of CO2 (to pick a gas)...and a very small drop in the bucket on the scale that Mother Earth moves carbon around.  Even CO2.  One volcano eruption can produce more CO2 for the year than all of mankind.  We really are a fairly insignicant scum on the face of the Earth.  Of course, some other insignificant scum creates almost all the oxygen, so we can't totally discount scum.  So let's do some Science and get some real numbers!

Are there things we should be worrying about/working toward improving?  Yes.  Pollution (especially in China) is a terrible problem all the way around.  But it doesn't have the political chutspa of screaming "Climate Change (Do You Believe?!)" in a room full of Young (hopefully to-be) Liberals, and it doesn't have the effective litmus test phrase: "Do you believe in Climate Chanhge?".  And, unfortunately for politicians, the science is a bit clearer and more readily applied.  Or fortunately.  Muddy science is exactly what some politicians want.  All that political clout to be grabbed and used by the shyster smart and bold enough to grab it!  

I heard a politician yesterday (Waxman or some such.  He is retiring! Probably to go on tour with Gore, who's carbon footprint on Monday could cover mine for my lifetime ) say, on C-Span (another Believer channel, unfortunately) words to the effect: "If there was a 10% chance that Climate Change is real, could we afford to ignore it?"  Only we don't have a number anywhere close to saying "gloable warming is 10% likely".  What we have is an observation that the world is getting warmer (absolutely true) and the *supposition* (not yet determined by science) that this is somehow our fault, so we all need to panic about it.  We also have this unreasoning panic about what it would mean to the world (New York, most likely) if Global Warming (excuse me: Climate Change) were real.

(Aside:  Some people don't really believe that losing New York would be all that negative a thing.)

That supposition that it is all our fault leaves out several other possibilities, starting with the facts that the Sun has been acting strangely  lately (compared with the available scientific record:  Just like Climate Change)  and the world's magnetic field has (I read recently) been declining at an ever increasing rate as it moves toward its anticipated and due reversal appointment.  The Sun could burp and it would invalidate all our numbers.  And us.  Is this likely the cause of Climate Change?  I dunno.  But at least it is a question that can be investigated, not an assertion that requires I say the magic phrase (I Believe...) to be included in the conversation.

Climate Change activists have left the science far behind.  They are not behaving like scientists.  The people who follow them, unlike those who discuss Evolution, are no longer talking science.  The answer, they say, Is In.  There is No More Need For Discussion.  We Must Do Something About It You Philistine!

Is there any wonder so many people aren't willing to fall into line with this way of thinking?  The frightening thing is that so many people are.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Remember that Al Gore warned of drowned cities and disastrous weather due to the "Carbon Footprint" of mankind?   We have passed his deadlines with New York still in place and a few colder-than-usual winters. No one who is old enough to reason would deny that the climate changes - it changes every day.   In the middle of the USA it has a habit of changing rather quickly and sometimes violently.  It turns out that such weather has been the norm here since the early French and Spanish trappers met various Indian tribes.  Oh, and we have historical documentation of the weather and movements of the stars and constellations for the last 3,000 plus years.  

There was one huge catastrophic global event = Noahic Flood.   It changed the very ecosphere and remade continents and terraformed the land with layers of very useful sedimentary rock and led organisms to devolve or go extinct in response to changing temperatures and seasons.  Oh, and much of the majestic canyons and sculpted sedimentary rocks were formed by the initial Flood runoff and then the subsequent dike breaks and mass floods at the end of the Ice Age.  Yes, people who built cities on the seashore before the massive glaciers of the Northern Hemisphere melted in reaction to a more normalized procession of seasons. The seawaters cooled and then the precipitation in the form of constant blizzards grew less, the cover of white across the North turned to liquid and then came the rising sea levels and various scenarios that would have yielded tales of Great Atlantis.  Just in case you did not notice, the last several hundred years have been changing but not in one discernible or predictable way.   If we have less Solar activity it will probably cool and if we have a huge volcano we certainly will cool for a season.  If we have a very active Sun for a prolonged period of time it will get hotter down here.  

Call me when you have learned to control the Sun or volcanoes...until then worrying about climate change is as silly as worrying about the orbit of the Moon around the Earth.   It is going to happen and you cannot stop it so do something useful instead?  

Sunday, May 04, 2014

Global Warming Hysteria and Evolutionary Thinking

Evolutionary thinking makes people do stupid things. That's right, I said it! Many supporters of evolution are ignorant of the flaws in evolutionary sciences — and I believe many are willingly so, since they refuse to examine evidence that challenges their paradigm.


Credit: Ted Scambos & Rob Bauer, NSIDC
Many scientists believe that global warming (or "global climate change") is a fraud and dare to doubt the "consensus". For example, this NASA scientist believes that it is nonsense. (If he would examine his assumption about an ancient Earth, he would see that the same kinds of assumptions, politics, grant money, bad science and circular reasoning that bolster global warming also form the "billions of years" age of the earth that he believes.) There are some scientists that believe global warming might be real, but not over the last fifteen years and it is not anthropogenic. It's the wild-eyed screamers that are causing harm, and their global warming beliefs are based on evolutionary assumptions.
What would you think if scientists were to suggest that large tracts of uncultivated land, which could be used to grow crops to feed hungry people, should be left untouched? And how would you react if their reason for leaving this potential farmland unused was to combat climate change? 
Believe it or not, that is precisely the scenario discussed in a recent issue of the journal Nature. Since 1990, about 77 million acres of cropland have remained uncultivated in Eastern Europe. Given the millions of hungry and undernourished people in the world, one would think that an intentional refusal to cultivate such land would be absolutely out of the question. However, if this land were put to the plow, some worry that the carbon released into the atmosphere as a result would contribute to global warming, and one scientist has even suggested that about two-thirds of this land should remain uncultivated indefinitely.
You can read the rest of this global warming and evolution connection at "The Bitter Harvest of Evolutionary Thinking".