Archive for the ‘Science’ Category

Though I grew up in a nominally Catholic family, and went to Mass most Saturdays, I grew up affirming evolution.  Like most boys, I like dinosaurs and cavemen.  We had the Time Life series of books on science, and I spent lots of time reading about the theory of evolution (sadly I’ve engaged in debates with people whether it was a theory, a hypothesis etc. but I don’t care what you call as long as you don’t call it a fact).  In school we watched those videos about the moths in England near the factories and other stories of evolution within a species.  I had no reason to doubt that this was an accurate interpretation of the data and explanation for our existence on this planet.  In fact, I did not doubt it was true.

Off to Boston University (no, not Boston College the more famous Catholic institution down the street that we usually beat in hockey).  I was required to take a lab science.  I hate lab sciences.  I inevitably mess up the experiments.  But just prior to my sophomore year, a class caught my eye.  It was …. Bioastronomy and the Search for Extraterrestial Life.  It was a lab science, but one without experiments!  I was all over that class!

The premise of the course was that the only way to determine if the possibility there was life on other planets was to study how life supposedly came to exist on this planet.  As a result we studied astronomy and evolution to arrive at an equation to determine that possibility.

A liberal blog that decided to make fun of my in this matter among others, figured that the professor didn’t do a very good job.  I think the professor did a fine job communicating the material to the converted.  But something happened to me.  I began to see all the factors that were vital to the existence of life.  At the end of the class there was a 1 in 10 to the 26th power chance of there being life (or something like that).  That is 1 followed by 26 zeroes.  That seemed quite unlikely to me.


Read Full Post »

I haven’t done much global warming stuff recently.  There is only so much you can respond to Al Gore & Co.’s misinformation and political spinning (is he still using NASA’s old temperature numbers, or the revised/corrected ones?).  But here is some good stuff found in the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society– stuff you won’t find in the NY Times or ABC News.

The article was written by David H. Douglass (professor at the University of Rochester), John R. Christy (professor at the University of Alabama), Benjamin D. Pearson and S. Fred Singer (professors at the University of Virginia).  They insist that evidence indicates many assumptions about global warming and CO2 are flat out wrong.

1. The observed patterns of temperature change can best be explained by solar variability, and don’t fit the greenhouse model predictions.  Dr. Douglass indicates “The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming.”

One of his co-authors, Dr. John Christy, added: “Satellite data and independent balloon data agree that atmospheric warming trends do not exceed those of the surface. Greenhouse models, on the other hand, demand that atmospheric trend values be 2-3 times greater.

“We have good reason, therefore, to believe that current climate models greatly overestimate the effects of greenhouse gases. Satellite observations suggest that GH models ignore negative feedbacks, produced by clouds and by water vapor, that diminish the warming effects of carbon dioxide.”


Read Full Post »


That is one big locust, folks.  We sure can grow them in Florida.

Read Full Post »

We’ve probably all seen this picture.  I hear it showed up on Al Gore’s multi-media presentation.  Global Warming Alarmists have used to to show that glaciers are melting, and (sob) the bears are drowning.  Kids are weeping, afraid that they deadly but beautiful beasts will be wiped out.

The truth, this picture dates from 2004 and a Woods Hole Geographic Expedition.  The caption?  “Mother polar bear and cub on interesting ice sculpture carved by waves.”  No mention in the dispactch of needing to rescue them from this naturally occuring event.  In the midst of the Wikipedia article on polar bears (ridden with Global Warming Alarmism) you find this: “Polar bears are excellent swimmers and have been seen in open Arctic waters as far as 60 miles from land.”  That 4 drowned bears have been found would seem to be an anomalie.  Stop scaring the kids with lies and misrepresentation.  If Global Warming were true, people like Al Gore wouldn’t have to lie, twist the truth and hide facts from people.  To resort to such measure shows me this is a load of something that produces one of those greenhouse gasses called methane.

HT: Rush

Read Full Post »

Here is a lengthy documentary exposing the great global warming swindle.  The various parts of it are also found on YouTube.  Sadly, you found this in our public schools- just Al Gore’s manipulations of data and alarmist hyperbole.

Update: Apparently an improved DVD version will be released, we think.  The producers are being opposed, and persecuted, for not towing the environmentalist line.  So much for freedom of thought.  I thought it was the conservatives that didn’t like free speech?  Oh, well.  The director was on the Glenn Beck show (CNN Headline News).  He had no agenda, but was asked to do the documentary for BBC.  They are trying to discredit him by calling him a Nazi.  He has met many scientists who have received death threats.

I think it may have been removed from You Tube.

Read Full Post »

It is always interesting when I agree with the NY Times.  Today is one of those days.  Finally, after Gore and his enviro-lapooza tour film has penetrated many of our public schools and won 2 Oscars… they decide to let the public know that actual, real scientists think the movie is inaccurate and over-heated.  Some portions:

“Criticisms of Mr. Gore have come not only from conservative groups and prominent skeptics of catastrophic warming, but also from rank-and-file scientists like Dr. Easterbook, who told his peers that he had no political ax to grind. A few see natural variation as more central to global warming than heat-trapping gases. Many appear to occupy a middle ground in the climate debate, seeing human activity as a serious threat but challenging what they call the extremism of both skeptics and zealots.”

“While reviewers tended to praise the book and movie, vocal skeptics of global warming protested almost immediately. Richard S. Lindzen, a climatologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a member of the National Academy of Sciences, who has long expressed skepticism about dire climate predictions, accused Mr. Gore in The Wall Street Journal of “shrill alarmism.””

This next one is particular interesting since people weren’t using fossil fuels 400 years ago-


Read Full Post »

The Boston Globe (Boston.com) has never been accused of being even remotely conservative.  But occasionally, some common sense slips through.  Such is the case with Jeff Jacoby’s column Chicken Little and Global Warning.

He lets the cat out of the bag: “Oddly enough, most of the news coverage neglected to mention that the document released on Feb. 2 by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was not the latest multiyear assessment report, which will run to something like 1,500 pages when it is released in May. It was only the 21-page “Summary for Policymakers,” a document written chiefly by government bureaucrats — not scientists — and intended to shape public opinion. ”

The average person does not know this, and gets confused regarding what there is and is not “scientific consensus”.  The problem is the media, which obscures important little details in order to sell us fear.

“In years past, scientists contributing to IPCC assessment reports have protested that the policymakers’ summary distorted their findings — for example, by presenting as unambiguous what were actually only tentative conclusions about human involvement in global warming. This time around, the summary is even more confident: It declares it “unequivocal” that the Earth has warmed over the past century and “very likely” — meaning more than 90 percent certain — that human activity is the cause.

“That climate change is taking place no one doubts; the Earth’s climate is always in flux. But is it really so clear-cut that the current warming, which amounts to less than 1 degree Celsius over the past century, is anthropogenic? Or that continued warming will lead to the meteorological chaos and massive deaths that alarmists predict? It is to the media. By and large they relay only the apocalyptic view: Either we embark on a radical program to slash carbon-dioxide emissions — that is, to arrest economic growth — or we are doomed, as NBC’s Matt Lauer put it last week, to “what literally could be the end of the world as we know it.””


Read Full Post »

Older Posts »