Posts Tagged ‘Science’

Global Warming Scandals Growing

Thursday, February 18th, 2010

The Anthropogenic Global Warming Church (AGWC) has been hit pretty hard as of late.  In short, the old “consensus” is falling apart.

The first major hit is the so-called “Climategate”, where emails from various scientists pushing the global warming agenda were leaked to the public.  Hardest hit is Prof. Phil Jones at the University of East Anglia, who had to step down as directory of the Climatic Research Unit after the leaked emails showed that scientists were manipulating data to bolster their claims.  He now admits that the data supporting the famous “hockey stick” graph is missing, warming periods have happened before without human influence and even that there has been no warming since 1995.  Prof. Jones also refused Freedom of Information requests and now claims to have lost the data.

Shortly after this, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been caught up in a row, showing that many of their claims were based on false information from environment groups instead of published academic research.  Claims that the Himalayan glaciers are melting by AGW came from unfounded speculation from a popular magazine.  Another IPCC claim about the destruction of rain forests by AGW is now recognized by the London Times as, “an unsubstantiated claim by green campaigners who had little scientific expertise”, “authored by two green activists” from the World Wildlife Fund.  The IPCC reports of reductions in mountain ice in the Andes, Alps and in Africa were taken from a dissertation by a Swiss student, who was quoting unsubstantiated rumors from mountain climbers.  IPCC claims of coral reef destruction by AGW came solely from advocacy articles from Greenpeace, with no peer-reviewed studies to support the claims.  The IPCC claim of Africa’s major agricultural loss came from a Canadian think tank, with no study to support it.  The IPCC claimed that the Netherlands was endangered, due to its 55 percent of land mass below sea level – when the truth is about 20 percent is below sea level. The IPCC has also been caught up by hard data showing that their claims of increased tropical storms is false.

In the US, scientists from Space Studies in Geophysics and Oceanography now state that Alaskan glacier loss was overestimated by 40 percent for a 40 year period. This data has been used for computer climate models.

Worse yet, Joseph D’Aleo and Anthony Watts, both well established meteorologists, have discovered that starting in 1990, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the U.S. National Climate Data Center purposely eliminated temperature measuring stations in rural, cooler locations – artificially pumping up the results.  This is not just a handful of stations either, the count went from 6,000 to less than 1,500.  The study also shows that jumps in global temperature from the NOAA coincide with cuts in weather stations used.  You can find a whole site devoted to surface stations problems.

Furthermore, the remaining stations used were compromised by local artificial conditions, such as being placed next to air conditioner exhausts, other heat exchangers and even trash burning barrels.

Russian scientists have discovered that readings from the coldest regions of the country had been omitted from the IPCC data.  Tree ring data, which indicated cooling since 1961, was truncated as well.

It’s not as if the common bloke couldn’t figure out something is wrong.  Europe and North America have been hit this winter with horrible cold and snowy weather.  So bad, the record cold weather is killing Florida’s coral reefs.

The American press, as usual, is so far out of step with reality that most of this news hasn’t been covered at all.

For those in the US who are trying to keep track of this all, I have found a handy, short guide.

As these scandals continue, I’m certain that the last remaining arguments from the AGWC will fall to the wayside and the environmental globalists will find a new boogyman to scare us all into the next scheme for global governance.  For if you examine the goals of the environmental movement, no matter what the crisis claimed, the solution is always the same: increased government control and taxation and destruction of capitalism.


Addendum: 2010/02/18

The spiral continues with a recent FOIA release of documents from NASA, showing blatant advocacy instead of scientific analysis.

Brainless

Monday, December 21st, 2009

He’s being called “a living miracle” and “a true Christmas miracle” that has “changed so many lives”.

Nickolas Coke, born without a brain (a condition called Anencephaly,) has managed to survive for a year without heavy medical intervention.

His mother, Sheena Coke, claims that the child shows signs of emotion, “He’s smiling. He’s laughed for the first time. It was wonderful to hear him laugh.” Though she is being honest with herself, knowing that Nicholas’ continued survival is unlikely. The longest any baby born in Anencephalic condition has lived, was two and half years.

I can understand her futile hopefulness, as he is her child after all and the emotional toil must be horrific.  However, I find the situation itself to be extremely unsettling.

Let’s start with the basics: Nicholas was born without a brain, nothing more than a brain stem is in his skull.  He is completely unable to perceive anything, in any of the five senses and never will be able to.  He will never be able to feel anything emotionally. He will never be able to have a thought of any kind. The nerve tissue needed for all these things, does not exist in his skull. In blunt terms, Nicholas is a slab of meat, kept alive by the most basic, less-than-reptilian portion of the brain – a section that can do no more than control digestion, respiration and heart beat. He cannot even determine at the most rudimentary level if he is being fed, or expelling waste, or even breathing. Plants have an infinitely more sophisticated sensory experience than his!

How is this a miracle?

Nicholas is a freak occurrence of nature, which gave him enough nerve tissue at the end of a spinal cord to keep rudimentary autonomic functions working.  That he has survived this long is disturbing, not miraculous and that he is being coddled and propped up as a miracle of any kind, is far more disturbing yet.

It is understandable that his mother would anthropomorphize Nicholas’ random nerve firings as emotional reaction, but basic biology tells us that this is a pipe dream with absolutely no possibility of being real reactions of any kind from Nicholas.  He simply does not have the brain tissue necessary to be able to generate emotional responses to anything. A random firing of nerve signals is not an emotional response. Since he cannot perceive anything through any physical sense, he likewise cannot possibly react to anything in any fashion at all.

Though this writeup of the story at News First 5 is particularly rife with absurd emotionalism, the comments are cloying. Post after post of infantile, ludicrous claims of miraculous nature, centered around the “gifts from God” simply prove to me all the more, how utterly delusional religious people are! Furthermore, these comments prove another point I had suspected, but hadn’t seen such a complete display of: most religious minded people are utterly clueless about the very basic facts of biology and science in general. Their delusional mindset allows them to discount empirical evidence at a whim.

Nickolas Coke may be brainless, but at least it took an act of nature to do that to him.

Putting Faith in its Place

Monday, October 5th, 2009

This is one of the most succinct explanations of the logic fallacies inherent to faith that I've ever run across.

Bravo to QualiaSoup (aka Doug) who put this together! Be sure to check out his other fantastic videos on the QualiaSoup YouTube Channel.

Piglet Plague

Tuesday, August 4th, 2009

Let’s have another reality check over the now over-hyped swine flu pandemic.

So far, since the beginning of the year, swine flu has been responsible for over 816 deaths world wide, according to the World Health Organization (WHO). 51 of these deaths have been in the USA.

As sad as this is, let’s compare this to a real world figure of a similar variety. Standard influenza, the everyday common flu, is responsible for approximately 36,000 deaths in the USA per year. If we multiply this by .58 to get a seven month value of 20,880 deaths to roughly match our current position in the calendar, regular influenza is 409 times more deadly than swine flu.

So why do we have government even discussing mass inoculations, pandemic emergencies and military intervention on US soil? Seriously, what’s the scare?

The scare is based on pure speculation. H1N1 swine flu virus is in the same family tree as the Spanish flu, of the great 1918 pandemic. That pandemic killed an estimated 50 to 100 million world wide, 500,000 to 675,000 in the US alone, at about a 2% mortality rate.

Again, as horrid as this is, that means there was a 98% survival rate and our medical science for dealing with hypercytokinemia, which was the leading cause of death stemming from the Spanish flu, is leaps and bounds above our previous methods of dealing with the problem: nothing at all! At least now we have ACE inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers, as well as T-cell inhibitors which can offer at least and avenue of attack against hypercytokinemia.

This scare also assumes that swine flu is going to mutate to have a worse effect than it currently does. This certainly isn’t a given fact. Even if it does, and it follows in the Spanish flu’s footsteps, the Spanish flu did it’s work in about nine months time and then simply disappeared as the human immune system naturally reacted and prevented the illness.

So why not play it safe anyway, ignore the fact that regular influenza is currently 409 times more deadly, and get inoculated against swine flu?

In 1976, when the first swine flu scare went through, 40 million were given vaccine shots to help prevent swine flu. Yet, the CDC and other medical organizations now state that there is was no effective vaccine against swine flu, and a new vaccine needed to be created. It was created earlier this year, but it’s yet untested.

From this timeline at WebMD:

“Pandemic swine flu vaccine is already rolling off the production lines of the five different vaccine makers supplying the U.S: 46% will come from Novartis, 26% will come from Sanofi Pasteur, 19% will come from CSL, 6% will come from MedImmune, and 3% will come from GlaxoSmithKline.

“By mid-July, clinical tests of the vaccines sponsored by the National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases will begin at the eight Vaccine and Treatment Evaluation Units at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston; Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati; Emory University, Atlanta; Group Health Cooperative, Seattle; Saint Louis University; University of Iowa, Iowa City; University of Maryland, Baltimore; and Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn.

“The five vaccine manufacturers will also start separate clinical tests in the U.S., Australia, and Europe. These tests will begin in July and August.”

So, now the questions are piling up. What happened to the 1976 vaccine? If the 1976 vaccine didn’t work, why were 40 million Americans given the shot? If the 1976 vaccine didn’t really work, how do we know that this fast-tracked new vaccine will do any better? Why is the government pushing for everyone to be inoculated with this currently untested vaccine, to the point that they are considering military intervention on US soil?

For my own concern, I don’t see swine flu as a deadly problem. Regular influenza is far worse in fatality rate and far more wide spread. There are too many questions concerning these new vaccines and no where near enough time between the start of clinical tests and the beginning of deployment this autumn, to know whether the new vaccines are effective or even dangerous. The swine flu vaccine of 1976 had hundreds of people developing the extremely rare Guillain-Barre syndrome after vaccination. Thousands have filed suit over the years for this and other illness they claim came from the vaccine. Are similar dangers going to rear up for the new vaccine?

Even more worrisome in all this, is that the government has given legal immunity to any manufacturer of the swine flu vaccine.

This means that if there are unwanted effects, causing crippling illness or death, no one will be able to sue for any compensation. Instead, some special fund will be created by the government, with compensation being dispensed at the whim of a government agency.

That alone is enough for me to avoid the swine flu vaccine. When government steps in to protect an industry from retaliation for causing harm, something is seriously wrong.

Each person will have to decide for themselves, of course. For me, I don’t see the benefit and I see no real danger from this puny piglet plague.

Blonds Started Global Warming

Thursday, December 18th, 2008

A new study by the Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen has narrowed down the end of the last ice age to exactly 11,711 years ago.

“Our new, extremely detailed data from the examination of the ice cores shows that in the transition from the ice age to our current warm, interglacial period the climate shift is so sudden that it is as if a button was pressed”, explains ice core researcher Jørgen Peder Steffensen, Centre for Ice and Climate at NBI at the University of Copenhagen.

Must have been human camp fires leading to global warming – or maybe mammoth farts.  Of course, human blond hair can be traced back via the MC1R gene to about 11,000 years ago, so there must be a connection.  Yep, blonds ended the last ice age and started global warming.

Hey, if the Church of Global Warming can make wild, unsupported accusations, I can too…

Science and Religion

Friday, October 24th, 2008

On another board I got into an argument with a group of Christians who claim that there is no problem with mixing science and religion. The Big Bang could have happened by the instigation of God and science should not have issue with this. Furthermore, it is counterproductive to invoke argument between science and religion, as it may have the effect of turning away the more dogmatically religious, further widening the gap between religion and science.

After reading the various arguments to this extent, I felt myself slipping into the Twilight Zone, unable to understand how it was that a naturalistic system (science) could even begin to add on a supernatural system (God), without corrupting the very nature of science itself. No political persuasion should change this dynamic, as far as I’m concerned.

For this, I was labeled a confrontational “New Atheist”, as if it was somehow worse than being an “Old Atheist”.

Frankly, I wasn’t familiar with the term, I had to look it up. I still haven’t figured out who coined the phrase, but it is a label for those like Richard Dawkins, who feel that not only should science be separated from religion completely, but science should challenge religion for the superstitious nonsense that it is. At first being labeled a “New Atheist” left me feeling confused over the implications, but now that I understand the meaning behind it: I accept the label and thank all you deluded Christians for it! I’m quite happy to be thrown into this new class.

You cannot mix science and religion. The reason is a very simple one (one that those I was in argument with refused to accept as even a possibility) that once you apply any supernatural entity, no matter how petty or large, into a naturalistic system – you have corrupted the system. Science is ruled by evidence and there is no evidence for gods, pixies, unicorns, flying spaghetti monsters, or honest politicians. Once you open the door to that without evidence, you have thrown out science and taken on philosophy. The scientific method starts with observation of the empirical, not mental musings of the ethereal.

Until it can be shown that the interjection of the supernatural into a naturalist system can occur, without corrupting the naturalistic system, there simply is no room for it.  Inserting supernatural answers into a naturalistic system is far more than just being counterproductive – it destroys the system.

I have had many tell me that my “love” of science is my largest downfall – that it leaves me overly skeptical and ignorant of the good that religion has brought to the world.  I counter with this simple test: compare what science has done for humanity in the last 200 years, with the entire history of religion on this planet.  Which has produced more, created more, improved more, furthered knowledge?  Which has ultimately done more for mankind?

Pray all you want, but science landed us on the moon.