Category: science

Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez And Climate Change

picture of a donkey
Best Picture I Could Find For Ocasio-Cortez

We all know what an infantile mind AOC has, but we still have to process the babble that comes from her mouth. Democratic Socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said that there is a consensus of scientists that predict that the future climate will be tough on kids. This is wrong on several levels.

The Dems and liberals say that 97% of scientists support some sort of consensus about global warming. First, nobody has a list of these so-called scientists, and the studies that make that claim are pretty rotten in their methods, just self-serving publications for social scientists that cannot get a real paper published.  Second, nobody knows exactly what that consensus would say if there were one.

When you hear someone ask if you believe in climate change, just ask “what part?”. They are then left speechless with no response. Climate change effects can be in several categories, like more tornadoes. more hurricanes, more and serious droughts. more wild fires. There is no scientific data showing that any of these things are real now, or ever will be. Sure, some ice will melt in the next few centuries, but all forecasts are that it will take possibly thousands of years for all of the Greenland ice pack to melt, and a very long time for the Antarctic ice to melt. In Antarctica there are volcanos under the ice melting from that level, but CO2 has little or no effect on that continent’s warming. For the most part it’s not warming at all.

Why do Democrats rant and scream about so-called Climate Change? Simple. This is the latest crisis they can find with grain of truth that they can exploit to suck money out of the American people. Most of climate change dogma is dog crap.

Ms Ocasio-Cortez believes all this stuff. This woman has a BA in international affairs and economics from Boston University. Oh, the terrible embarrassment BU must be undergoing with this little jewel flashing her ignorance around the world.

She has a sterling resume, but that just reminds me of the prophetic film, Forest Gump. Stupid is as stupid does.

 

Only Fools Believe In Science

scientist
Scientist

Science does not exist as an object in the physical world. In other words you cannot pick up a piece of science and play with it. You can’t go to a store and buy a pound of science. You can’t eat that stuff, either.

Science is a group of IDEAS! Ideas are not physical, even though they can be contained in a book. Science is a metaphysical tool we use to describe the physical world. These ideas are used to fashion experiments, and collect the resulting data with a validated or invalidated hypothesis being noted. A creature called science was never born. We wind up with just an idea and hopefully some new information on how the world works.

Based on the non-physical description of science, it goes further that since the origination of the scientific method (system of ideas), the knowledge resulting from scientific experimentation CHANGES on a regular basis. That which we thought was true will many times abruptly change.

We don’t bleed people anymore in barber shops. We know that ulcers are usually caused by bacteria, not diet. Who knows how good or bad coffee is for ones health (so many studies). The list of scientific failures is very long, and gets longer everyday.

We now know that many if not most of scientific studies in medicine are either false, or not meaningful.  Check this : Dr John Ioannidis.

So, why do people rely so much on “science” when the results are likely to change? My opinion is that scientists have become so proficient in promulgating their stories to get grant money that they are automatically believed. Follow the money.

Many people say they believe in science, and not God. Are you glad you worship something that is likely to change? 

Sustainability Does Not Exist

Oh, boy. Now I can sit back and wait for the Bangs, Whistles, Whammos, Biffs, and Bongs that the environmental and climate change anointed will be throwing at me. Notice the use of onomatopoeia in the previous sentence. But, I digress.

As I was cruising around the blogosphere, I made my regular stop at Watts Up With That, the most popular scientific website in existence. I found an article titled, “UNESCO: We Must Redesign Global Literacy Programmes to Incorporate our Climate Propaganda“.

The article is about a UNESCO worldwide literacy proposal, “International Literacy Day, devoted this year to the connection between literacy and sustainable development, provides us with an opportunity to remember a simple truth: literacy not only changes lives, it saves them.

OK. I will buy that literacy helps save the lives of ignorant people the world over, but what does sustainable development have to do with that? Perhaps Wikipedia can help.

Sustainability:  “In ecology, sustainability (from sustain and ability) is the property of biological systems to remain diverse and productive indefinitely.”

Now that everyone has had a chance to see the definition of sustainability, I have to point out that nothing is forever. The context of the word, indefinitely means “without ending”. Wow, mom and dad. They have found infinity.

NOT!

Do you suppose that our ecologists really think that infinity exists? Their definition of sustainable ecologies makes you wonder if any have ever been to high school, much less college.

This article is all about trying to find a connection between literacy and sustainability. It appears that there is none. A bunch of PhD’s probably originated this fallacy, but it’s not hard to prove that they are either completely wrong, or are trying to perpetuate a scam on the American people.

Nothing is sustainable. Period. Every physical system takes energy, work, supplies, water, effort to continue to exist, etc. An infinitely sustainable system, by definition, is impossible.

How about short-term sustainability? This is what we work for everyday, and we apply all our energy into surviving, or sustaining life for another minute, hour, day…

That, my good friends, is sustainability, but the goal of the ecologists is for some sort of stasis, or death, because nothing is sustainable by their definition. As improbable as it seems, death is exactly what the extreme ecologists advocate. Mankind, according to them, is bad and does not deserve the resources necessary to survive and prosper on the planet. Kill, baby, kill the bad human.

Dr John Holdren, his colleagues and coauthors, Drs Paul and Ann Ehrlich, and a large contingent of ecologists believe that planet Earth is better served by decreasing the human population. In educated circles this idea is called genocide. John Holdren is the personal science advisor to President Barack Obama. Now you know where Obama gets his infantile ideas on environment.

There is no reality about ecological sustainability. There is no connection between ecological sustainability and literacy, unless by becoming literate you can judge this ecological scam accurately. That’s the only connection. Smart people don’t believe ecological sustainability exists.

The idea of sustainability is political, not scientific. The UN, a rogue political body, wants to indoctrinate children with this fallacious idea.

 

Are We In A Computer Simulated World?

Neil deGrasse Thson picture
Neil deGrasse Tyson, Hotdog Scientist

That’s what Neil deGrasse Tyson believes. Tyson is moderating a symposium of pretend academics and scientists at the Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate at the American Museum of Natural History. So says the magazine, Scientific American.

Tyson believes that the probability of our universe being part of a computer simulation written and run by super-beings is a high probability. Who is paying this guy, anyway? It does not take a genius to recognize the futility of such an argument.

But, wait. Isn’t this idea tantamount to saying that God created the (our) universe? Or, as some of the scientists say, could there be many Gods in a universe that is “higher” than ours doing the programming and making us all look like modern monkeys?

If this were true we can erase parts of the program we don’t like. If we were to erase some of the monkeys, that would not be murder. If we are all simulations it is not a crime to erase things. I am sure you can come up with some examples of people, places, and things you would like to erase. Why not start with something big?

If we are a big simulation by the Big Programmer in The Sky why not erase Los Angeles, for example?

I am throwing the BS flag on this idea and Scientific American Article. There is no reason to believe we are part of a simulation, or an experiment. I believe we are created beings, and that life is real not only to mankind, but to our Creator.

If  you are looking for someone who has been programmed think of the journalist who wrote this article, and the scientists who attended this soiree. Doesn’t the journallist have something better to write about? Don’t the scientist have better things to do with all the Federal money they take? Who is dreaming up all this stuff? What are they smoking?

This subject has been covered more intelligently at Scott Adams blog. Adams is the creator of Dilbert, and has a good handle on the world, or computer simulation if you will.

Instead of a big computer simulation, maybe a cartoonist has created our world and we are just Looney Tunes characters.

 

 

 

Seven Years Down The Drain

I will never forget the first time I saw John Belushi in the National Lampoon movie, Animal House. Millions of American men connected with characters in that movie. One of the most memorable quotes is when John Belushi’s character, Bluto disconsolately uttered those famous seven words, “Seven years of college down the drain“.

In the last seven years our economy, our foreign relations, our national security, and our national pride have been going down the drain.

The Obama White House has been performing like some college social club that concentrates on the partying and relative social positioning, rather than serious issues. It is as if Delta House has come alive, and Joe Biden has taken on the role of Bluto, and President Obama has taken the role of Otter, the smooth upper-classman who was screwing everything in site. They only thing the White House is serious about is political power, not economic or national security.

To make matters worse, the White House has bought into the genocidal goals of the climate change crazies. These guys are off the deep end. Such disreputable scientists as Paul Ehrlich and Dr John Holdren, the President’s personal science advisor, are paraded front and center. These are the crazies who jointly advocate population control. That plan includes genocide. Obama seems to like their ideas.

As a consequence of their ignorance, the world is starting to crumble as Islamic terrorists have their sway, bombing passenger airplanes from the air, and beheading Christians with impunity. Russian leader, Vladimir Putin, is asserting his influence in the middle-east while Obama is retreating. The Iranians have found a way to construct their much desired nuclear weapons because of a desperate agreement our President wanted for his legacy.

Seven years ago, the US Government started a review process to determine whether Canadian Keystone XL pipeline should be built across portions of the United States to help Canada export some of their oil. The US State Department was involved because the situation involved relations with a foreign country.

During the following seven years, the Environmental Protection Agency, and every other concerned government agency could find no fault or problem with the project. It was obvious from the outset that the whole project was political, especially when there was NO science that showed any harm or danger to the public, or to public lands.

So, what stand does our mighty and super-intelligent President take? Our playboy President announced today that the Keystone XL pipeline project would not be approved.

Surprise! Surprise! Surprise!

The tragedy of the Keystone XL pipeline saga is that politics have triumphed over science, economics. and common sense. There is no rational argument that one can launch justifying the cancellation of this project. Much needed jobs would have resulted, and the available of more oil would have contributed to a long term stabilization of the world oil markets.

In case you are thinking that the carbon emissions from this project would have contributed to some sort of world-wide catastrophe, you are wrong. There is no science that shows that carbon dioxide is anything more than a moderate greenhouse gas. Indeed, CO2 is necessary for life and the production of the very oxygen we breathe. CO2 is plant food, and  as every high-school biology student learns, is called photosynthesis. Carbon dioxide is life!

For seven years this administration has had the Keystone XL pipeline decision before them. For seven years the administration has been trying to find a way to mitigate the political blowback from their mindless opposition. Now that national elections are looming, Obama had to move. He is counting on the idea that the electorate will forget his insanity of cancelling the Keystone XL pipeline in time to keep the Democrat Party from being erased from electoral politics for generations to come.

Seven years of no gain. Seven years of virtual recession. Seven years of kissing up to terrorists.

Seven years down the drain.

Do Science And Religion Mix?

Charmed-dia-wThere are lots of people on both sides of this issue that will tell you that science and religion do not mix. Evolution is the hot button for many, and there has sprung up a counter idea called Creationism. I am not sure what it is about Creationism that appeals to people, but since it supposedly challenges evolutionary theories, lots of people will string along.

Notice that I said that I really don’t know about Creationism. Well, I really am not deeply conversant with evolutionary theory, either. I will say that I am a Christian, and I am also a person with a scientific view of the world. This is not a contradiction

Let me quote someone from the religion side of things:

“I don’t think that there’s any conflict at all between science today and the Scriptures. I think we have misinterpreted the Scriptures many times and we’ve tried to make the Scriptures say things that they weren’t meant to say, and I think we have made a mistake by thinking the Bible is a scientific book. The Bible is not a book of science.” — Rev. Billy Graham

Some evolutionary enthusiasts may say that Billy Graham was dodging the issue. Certainly, the first chapter of Genesis explains in detail how God created the world. Isn’t the Genesis version of creation a fairy tale? How do you explain the second creation story in Genesis? Why are they in conflict as suggested by Carl Sagan in his book, “Contact”?

I have never considered the Genesis 1:1 account as a literal description, even when I first read it when I was elementary school age. Read it yourselves. It is a beautiful story, poetic, and satisfying for someone trying to tell the story. The second story reverses part of the time line, but it starts a different part of the story. Carl Sagan was simply misguided, and not knowledgeable about the Scriptures, or how a stone age culture would tell a story. The writers of Genesis simply did their best to explain how God did what He did.

Evolutionary theory partly says that humans are descended from apes. Now, my wife will take exception to that, but will somewhat agree that I may be a bit ape like. Ah, the vicissitudes of life and marriage. For millions of people, the fossil record upon which the evolutionists depended was not satisfactory at all. Indeed, the record jumps around all over the place, and it makes you wonder why scientific people were making the assumptions they were. But, that is not the whole story.

It is easy to visualize evolution as a viable way for creation to have happened. Even now, there is substantial debate as to whether evolution can be correct. Enter the science of genetics.

Genetics ruins it all for Creationists. The Creationists who insist on some alternative way people evolved, or worse yet, appeared on earth as functioning, modern adults, have to wake up and take stock. Genetics is not a assumption like the fossil record. Genetics is legitimate science.

Live with it, folks. It certainly looks like some form of evolution has been at work for a very long time. There a lot of questions to be answered, but the truth will be made clear, eventually.

As a Christian I have no problem with genetics, or the idea of an evolutionary process in human development. However, I do not believe in random.

Random is just another word for uncertainty. I cannot buy the idea of a magical, random march of quarks, protons, electrons, and other esoteric particles in the origin of life, and the progression of mankind. I believe in a causal world. For every action there is a cause, and we have not ascertained the cause of every action, much less understand the cause of life,

So, Christians let science do what science does. I don’t think there are any conflicts.

Scientists, let it go about criticizing religion. After all, we are seeing new religions spring up, one of them being that of Science itself. Be careful about what you worship.

Absence Of Evidence Is Not Evidence Of Absence?

Evidence Of Absence?
Evidence Of Absence?

Several famous people have used this phrase in lots of situations. Recently, Neil deGrasse Tyson used it in the following way : “One of our mantras in science is that the absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence.”  This outburst was in defense of a failure of his memory in quoting George W Bush. Tyson got it wrong and after some embarrassing back and forth, finally admitted his error.

In thinking about the meaning of the phrase I realized that the phrase can be nuanced to death. You could spin the phrase to mean pretty much anything.

So, how do you take the meaning?

  • Evidence is evidence, and if there is no evidence to support a theory, there is no evidence. You cannot say that the absence of evidence proves the theory is false. You can only speak of things in the language of uncertainty, i.e., the theory is likely false if there is no empirical evidence to the contrary.
  • If there is no elephant in the room, and if you don’t see any evidence there is an elephant in the room, this lack of evidence means there is no elephant in the room. So, a lack of evidence can be used as evidence of absence.
  • That there is no physical evidence of mental telepathy means that mental telepathy does not exist.
  • There is no evidence mental telepathy does not exist, therefore it exists. This is called an Argument from Ignorance.

Tyson said that the phrase was a scientific mantra. Why would he say that? Maybe his mantra is really, “Everything I say is correct and shame on you for questioning my veracity.”

Everything depends on evidence. In science evidence must be data indicating actual physical parameters. Evidence is measured, counted, photographed, etc.

Of course, there are the ever popular examples as follow:

  1. If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one to hear it, did it make a sound?
  2. If your wife talks to you during a football game, does this mean you are hard of hearing just because you didn’t hear her?

I am guilty of getting into some deep, unfamiliar waters here. This stuff probably comes under the heading of philosophy. I skillfully endeavored to not take philosophy in college. I was more interested in electrons and women, not necessarily in that order.

It is time to stop this article. I have a headache.