Zombie Science 4

It is amazing how the political radicals of this world have come to control the narrative of science. For example, the personal adviser to the President of The United States, Dr. John Holdren, claims loudly that increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is causing more severe droughts, hurricanes, and other forms of extreme weather. This is in spite of most of the world’s scientists believing otherwise, and there being no empirical data to support this fiction.

According to Dr Roger Pielke, Jr of the University of Colorado, Holdren is pushing ZOMBIE SCIENCE! In his blog post, Dr Pielke used passages from the IPCC AR5 report on the state of the climate to support the claim of  Holdren’s lack of knowledge.

Pielke goes on to say, “There is really not much more to be said here — the data says what it says, and what it says is so unavoidably obvious that the IPCC has recognized it in its consensus. “.

The following charts are a sampling of NOAA information illustrating the real data (evidence) of extreme weather. There are no trends to even suggest that more tornadoes, hurricanes, forest fires, drought, or floods are linked to carbon dioxide fueled global warming. Any other interpretation of the data is brain dead, and is not part of the climate change consensus.

 

Tornado Activity - No Trend

Tornado Activity – No Trend

 

 

Hurricanes - One Hundred Years

Hurricanes – One Hundred Years

 

 

 

Wild Fires - No Trend

Wild Fires – No Trend

 

Read This NSA! 2

President Obama Should Be Arrested And Jailed!

There. I said it.

Now, the NSA can come knocking at my door because I said something bad about our President.  We have all heard stories about how cars have been pulled over because they sported a bumper sticker that was less than praise oriented towards our Chief Executive. That may be nothing compared to what I just said.

Plus, now we know that the NSA is reading our emails, and documenting our home telephone and cellular telephone calls. Add that all together and you have an out-of-control government. In view of that kind of snooping, can reading all our blogs and comments be far behind? Freedom of speech has seen better days. We voted for change and we got it.

Why should the President of The United States be arrested? For the simple reason that he is breaking the law by changing laws that were passed by the US Congress, and signed by the Chief Executive. It makes no difference whether the Chief Executive who did the initial signing was the same one changing the law. The law is still being circumvented.

So, how do you enforce the laws with a rogue President? Do you publish a court opinion telling him to cease and desist? What if he were to thumb his nose at the Supreme Court. There is no way for the Supreme Court to enforce its rulings. There is precedent for this when Andrew Jackson ignored a Supreme Court ruling about the Cherokee Indians being defrauded of their land by the State of Georgia. This situation is called nonacquiescence.  Jackson moved the Cherokees out of Georgia to Oklahoma in an event that is called the Trail of Tears, today. Andrew Jackson was never punished for this crime.

In our national history there has been no solution for the rogue Executive, or other branch of government. We are truly screwed.

There are only two solutions that have played out in world history to reign in rogue governments. One is by military coup, and the other is by a civil revolution. I support neither.

If you think this kind of thing is rare, just read the history of the last two-hundred years. Or, you can just watch the TV news tonight to see what is happening to the poor souls in the Ukraine. Take heed of the protests, fires burning in the streets, and the police shooting citizens. Their government has gone rogue.

Snow, Ice, Batteries, Bread, And Milk 6

If you live in the southern United States you know exactly what I am talking about. Whenever we get a weather report that even hints of snow, sleet, or ice we storm the grocery stores, and clean the stores out of bread, milk and other necessary commodities. Oh, don’t forget the beer and booze.

Since the recent ice storm in Georgia was probably the most publicized in recorded history, not only did we get to raid the stores once, we got to do it again as the storm arrived a day late. The big items were bread, milk, flashlight batteries, ice-melting salt mixtures, beer, and spirits.

I had gotten the milk, bread, and beer a couple of days before the rush. I don’t know why I got the milk. You see, I am lactose intolerant and milk is not my friend. What an idiot I am, but I was caught up in the heady moment of hoarding. The only thing I forgot was the batteries.

You see, I am flashlight nut. I have about half a dozen flashlights and battery-run lamps just for those emergencies when the power goes out. Once, we were without power for over two days and we never forgot it. At Super Target I got some D cell batteries, AA batteries, and AAA batteries for the various devices we use. The D cells were for regular flashlights; the AA’s were for a couple of smaller lights I keep in the night-stands; and the AAA’s were for the newer LED lights that cost about five bucks at finer hardware stores, everywhere.

Yep! I got batteries. As a matter of fact, I bought four packages of Energizer Alkaline D cells with four cells per package. I only got a dozen AA’s because I had another dozen at home. It is the AAA’s  where you overstock because they sell them in packages of two to three dozen. Wow! Do I ever have AAA’s.

Since the ice has come and gone, what the heck am I going to do with all those batteries? I have sixteen D cells in the package, two dozen AA’s in the package, and two dozen AAA’s in the package. The beer will disappear all on its own. But, what am I to do with the gallon of milk that I am not going to drink?

I guess I will keep the batteries for the next emergency. The gallon of milk can go to my daughter and her kids.

Does anybody need any batteries?

Should We Legalize All Drugs? 6

I’ve always been a big fan of Milton Freedman, Nobel Laureate economist. One of his more controversial ideas was to legalize all drugs. His reasoning was that drug related crimes would pretty much stop, and the nation would save billions of dollars when not having to fight a war on drugs. See a Miltion Freedman video, here.

As Freedman illustrates, there are lots of good reasons to legalize the use of all drugs. It almost goes without saying that drive-by shootings would decrease to almost zero. Tax revenues would increase on the sale of these drugs. Our prison population, and the cost to maintain these people, would decrease significantly. He makes it sound like a win-win.

However…

What happens to those who insist on using these drugs? How do we handle their addictions? Are we prepared to handle future addictions?

Now that my children are grown-up, I have another worry. I am concerned about my grandchildren. They are small people, right now, but someday they will go to high school and college. What problems will they face. Will it become really popular to use crack cocaine? Why not? Our President thinks it’s OK.

In my own smug way I always thought that others could make the mistake of wallowing in the addictions of drugs and alcohol. If others took themselves out of the job market, I would only profit. But, I never thought that we are all vulnerable to these problems with some at greater risk than others.

Right now, I have decided that legalizing all drugs could be a big mistake. I value my children and grandchildren. I am not so stupid to think that alcohol and marijuana are harmless. Only a fool would think that way.

How many potheads do you remember in school or your neighborhoods? Do you want your kids or grand-kids to be pot-stupid, too?

This is the future we face if we continue down this road of legalizing pot, crack, and other drugs.

Where will it end?

The Goldilocks Generation Reply

That’s us!

We have always heard about our Goldilocks world. Goldilicks was the little girl in the story of The Three Bears. There were always three levels of things, and the middle one was “just right”. Our earth is positioned in the solar system at a point that is not too close to the sun, nor too far away from the sun. The earth’s position is “just right” for life. We live on a Goldilocks planet.

The baby boom generation is easily a Goldilocks generation. We were born right after a great World War in an America destined to become the world’s richest country, and a nation that whose populace were the most free in the history of man of any major nation.

Our parents doted on us, and encouraged us to learn a trade, get an education, worship our Lord and Savior, and show compassion to those who were not as gifted as the rest of us. We were  taught to love our neighbors as ourselves.

Some of us were luckier than others in that some parents could afford first class private schools and universities for their kids. The rest of us had to go to public schools and universities. Some of us were lucky enough to work our way through school in spite of our parents not being able to afford us that education.

Things are different, now. Thanks to the current administration our nation is declining in international standing, and we have a moribund economy because of government taxes, regulations, and social programs. Even though our generation has spent trillions of dollars to educate our children, it is all going for naught.

Our government is destroying the middle class with disincentives to entrepreneurs. High taxes and state, local, and federal laws work against someone who wants to start a business, or who already has a business. The government’s anti-business policies are anti-people policies. The most obvious of which is the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare).

Obamacare is a real drag on the economy, and a big disincentive for people to start businesses. There are other ways to improve access to healthcare, but Obamacare makes sure that everybody pays more, gets less, and the resulting healthcare is of lower quality. More people are hurt than are helped.

So, baby boomers have lived their lives in relative freedom and prosperity compared to what our children are facing. Our kids have less, have lower paying jobs, and have to pay higher taxes with the cost of living rising everyday due to the actions of the federal government.

Yes, indeed! Us baby boomers had it lucky. We were the Goldilocks generation. It was all just right.

The Big Creation – Evolution Debate Reply

The debate was on debatelive.org, and was between Bill Nye, “The Science Guy”, and Ken Ham, CEO of Genesis Answers. The facility was the Creation Museum in Kentucky which Mr. Ham apparently runs. Bill Nye is well-known as a so-called science expert, and Ken Ham is a young-earth creationist. The young-earth creationists say that the earth is only about six thousand years old as opposed to the scientific view that it is four and a half billion years old.

The debate was a classic exchange of evolution arguments against Biblical based creation. Bill Nye used fossil evidence, radiometric evidence, and other things like genetic findings. He tried to concentrate his presentation against the young-earth hypothesis of the creationists. In doing so he repeatedly made a mistake in expressing that people who believe the Bible don’t understand science, or scientific principles. I agreed with him about the young-earth hypothesis being incorrect, but thought it was beyond the pale to imply that Christians, especially Christians in southern states, are ignorant of science and mathematics. That was pretty shallow of him.

The young-earth creationist view comes by counting Old Testament  generations from Adam to Jesus who lived at at a known time. I think they believe it was two thousand years from the world’s creation to Moses; two thousand years from Moses to Jesus; and two thousand years from Jesus to the present. There is uncertainty in their method, but I don’t feel like delving into all those scriptures and counting generations and years.

Of course, the four and a half billion year age of the earth comes from estimation using geological and astronomical data. Ken Ham’s retort to this sort of measurement was to define two types of science; present day observational science and historical science. His point was that since we were not present when the earth was created, we cannot ascertain age using current scientific methods. Ham says that all we are doing is making unwarranted assumptions.

In this Ham is wrong. Science is science, and it should always be based on observational data. The way we estimate the age of  things formed in the past is by using well known constants that were valid in antiquity, and are valid now. Think Carbon 14 dating, radioactive decay of uranium or other elements. There are many methods of physically dating rocks, bones, and vegetable substances. However, there are uncertainties in many methods, and these are usually expressed as a plus and minus accuracy. Ken Ham argues that none of them are accurate, and I think his argument is based on wishful thinking rather than any concrete evidence.

Nye did not classify the uncertainty of many of the dating methods. It is things like that get lost in so-called debates. He pointed out that there were lots of physical things that are dated older than the six thousand years of Ham’s creationist world. For example, the well known Bristle Cone Pine trees of California can get very old. The age of these trees is measured by counting tree rings, and involves very few assumptions. At least one is nine thousand years old. Ham had no reply to this example.

Ken Ham was absolutely consistent. If he didn’t have a physical explanation, he relied on the Bible. When Bill Nye said he didn’t know how matter was created, Ham pointed that there was a book that explained all that, and the book is the Bible. That got a few laughs in the audience.

Nye also exhibited a good deal if ignorance about the Bible and Christianity. For example, he accused Ham of being inconsistent when Ham explained that the Bible had many parts, not just a description of creation and laws. Bill Nye had no knowledge of the Book of Psalms which is poetry and songs.

Mr Nye also seemed to have no appreciation of the way science is always changing. Not all science changes, but almost every day some theory or scientific finding is overturned. That’s the way science works. Nye spoke of science as if it were a monolithic, unchanging thing. Science is a process designed to use evidence as its basis. When new evidence becomes available,  older theories are many times invalidated.  Trusting in science for an ultimate truth is risky, indeed.

Bill Nye has a degree in mechanical engineering, and as such, is an intelligent person. Unfortunately, his knowledge is lacking in some cases.. Ken Ham is nothing but stubborn, and it is sometimes disappointing when he hides behind the Bible rather than give an answer other than the evolutionists make too many assumptions.

The purveyors of evolution do make a lot of assumptions, and then tout those assumptions as science. For example, they fossil record is not satisfactory to me to explain evolution. What is more convincing are the genetic records. Even though I am a Christian, I accept the principle of evolution.

I don’t believe evolution detracts from the glory of God. When you look into the miracles of nature with science, it is hard NOT believe in God. Mr Nye would be well advised to thank God for our ability to scientifically explore all creation. Mr Ham would be well advised to keep an open mind.

Note: You may be interested in this article on the Federalist blog by Cathy Resienwitz. She calls creationism as believing in the “God of the gaps”. Interesting, and I agree with her.

Existential Stuff Reply

This seems like a good time to discuss beliefs and observations about a couple of basic questions. Does God exist? Why cannot the existence of God be proven.

There is a blog by Dr Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama, Huntsville. Dr Spencer is a decorated scientist and a pioneer in climatology who helped develope satellite technology to measure the earth’s surface temperatures, a much more reliable and consistent measurement than the older surface thermometers. Dr Spencer is also a Christian. I hope you enjoy his blog at this link. It was written in response to a journalist who knew nothing about science or Christianity.

You see, science is only a process that is imperfect at best. All it can do is compare physical entities and judge proof on that comparison. If you have no data you have no proof. So, if you have no physical evidence of God, you have no proof of God’s existence. Also, if you have no physical evidence of a random creation of life, you have no proof. This is a sword that cuts both ways.

Spencer makes the point that it takes the same degree of faith to believe in a Creator as it does to believe in a random process of particles accidentally creating life.  It takes a LOT of faith to believe in random.

When someone says they don’t believe in God because we cannot physically prove the existence of God, I have to question what they really believe. Do they not believe in God because they cannot see, feel, smell God?

Do people believe creation started in a random dance of electrons and other quantum particles banging together in some sort of cosmic march of the sugar-plumb quarks? Do they believe that space aliens brought life to earth several million years ago, or that life was transported to earth in asteroids and comets?,

Much of the science we read about in news releases, or done in the past has proven to be false. It is the job of the scientific process to disprove old ideas as new hypotheses are generated. This happens every day.

It looks like you have to work as hard to believe in nothing as to believe in God.