Tuesday, January 30, 2007

No AMS Seal of Approval for you!

I don't normally reproduce full articles here, but in this case the DrudgeReport issued a newsflash that I know will disappear soon and wanted to post here for informational purposes. It seems there are two books available (one already out, one soon to be released) which challenge the supposed scientific high ground of the Global Warming Theorists by documenting the reality of natural warming patterns and demonstrating how and why they occur:

Two New Books Confirm Global Warming is Natural; Not Caused By Human Activity
Tue Jan 30 2007 10:02:32 ET

Two powerful new books say today’s global warming is due not to human activity but primarily to a long, moderate solar-linked cycle. Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years, by physicist Fred Singer and economist Dennis Avery was released just before Christmas. The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change, by Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark and former BBC science writer Nigel Calder (Icon Books), is due out in March.

Singer and Avery note that most of the earth’s recent warming occurred before 1940, and thus before much human-emitted CO2. Moreover, physical evidence shows 600 moderate warmings in the earth’s last million years. The evidence ranges from ancient Nile flood records, Chinese court documents and Roman wine grapes to modern spectral analysis of polar ice cores, deep seabed sediments, and layered cave stalagmites.

Unstoppable Global Warming shows the earth’s temperatures following variations in solar intensity through centuries of sunspot records, and finds cycles of sun-linked isotopes in ice and tree rings. The book cites the work of Svensmark, who says cosmic rays vary the earth’s temperatures by creating more or fewer of the low, wet clouds that cool the earth. It notes that global climate models can’t accurately register cloud effects.

The Chilling Stars relates how Svensmark’s team mimicked the chemistry of earth’s atmosphere, by putting realistic mixtures of atmospheric gases into a large reaction chamber, with ultraviolet light as a stand-in for the sun. When they turned on the UV, microscopic droplets—cloud seeds—started floating through the chamber.

“We were amazed by the speed and efficiency with which the electrons [generated by cosmic rays] do their work of creating the building blocks for the cloud condensation nuclei,” says Svensmark.

The Chilling Stars documents how cosmic rays amplify small changes in the sun’s irradiance fourfold, creating 1-2 degree C cycles in earth’s temperatures: Cosmic rays continually slam into the earth’s atmosphere from outer space, creating ion clusters that become seeds for small droplets of water and sulfuric acid. The droplets then form the low, wet clouds that reflect solar energy back into space. When the sun is more active, it shields the earth from some of the rays, clouds wane, and the planet warms.

Unstoppable Global Warming documents the reality of a moderate, natural, 1500-year climate cycle on the earth. The Chilling Stars explains the why and how.

Of course, this article doesn't exist and neither do these two books, because after all no reputable scientists would dare challenge the Church of Global Warming!

Labels: ,

Tuesday, January 23, 2007

The Passion of the Cruise?

For a long time I have simply chuckled a little when reading the occasional news story about fringe cults like Scientology. The increasing publicity Tom Cruise has created for the Church of Scientology has simply produced more jokes, and a time or two I've even been inspired enough to write a few parodies such as "Suri with the Fringe Cult Pop."

Today isn't one of those inspirational times. According to Scientology cult leader David Miscavige, Tom Cruise is the new "Christ" of Scientology.

First of all, the irony in this statement is delicious. You see, according to secret Scientology teachings, "God, the Devil and Christ" are all characters in fictitious 3D motion pictures that were shown to the souls (or "thetans") of a bunch of aliens who now live in clusters in the bodies of humans, and "
the only reason people believe in God and Christ was because it was in the film their body thetans saw 75 million years ago." So this cult leader is comparing the most public figure of his cult with a religious figure his cult claims is a fiction born of a long-dead alien race.

(With stories like this, it's no small wonder L. Ron Hubbard failed as a science fiction writer!)

To make it even worse, Mr. Miscavige draws the comparison by pointing to the fact that Christ was "
criticised for his views" but later generations realized he was right. The problem, Mr. Miscavige, is that your cult doesn't believe Christ was right at all, and thus you are comparing Tom Cruise to a false prophet who was rightly criticized for his views because he was actually just playing off the brainwashing of a bunch of alien "body thetans."

To compare Tom Cruise to Jesus Christ is quite simply blasphemous and silly. The archaeological evidence alone supporting the Scriptural accounts of the life and work of Christ are quite extensive. Scientific support of any kind supporting the notion of billions of aliens being nuked, brainwashed, and left to inhabit the bodies of humans is simply non-existent.

Jesus Christ was conceived of the Holy Spirit, born of a virgin, suffered and died, rose again, ascended to Heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father. He shall return in glory to judge all men, and His Kingdom will have no end.

Tom Cruise is just a mentally unstable actor caught up in the deceptions of a cult whose founder is still dead (and will stay dead until the day he's raised up to be judged by Christ). Tom Cruise will die the same as every other sinful man, and will one day face the King whose likeness he is presently being compared to.

I have a feeling nobody will have any trouble telling who is who.

Labels: ,

Saturday, January 20, 2007

It Begins...

In one of the most unsurprising announcements this century, Hillary Clinton launched her bid for the office of President of the United States.


Everybody knew she would run. She had her sights set on this election since before her husband was out of office. Everything about her is cold and calculating. I'll be very intersted to see how she tries to present herself in the next year and a half. I'm sure it will be anything but what she actually is.


Friday, January 19, 2007

Global Warming: Giving Darwin a Run for His Money

Forget where we've been...now it's about where we're heading.

One of the most consistent tactics of liberalism is the rewriting of history to manufacture support for what they want to do. Secular humanists have spent the last 150 years diligently rewriting history (and "other animals" which preceeded him) by promoting the pseudo-scientific myth of Darwinian Macroevolution. It was certainly pervasive and persistent enough to see the Haeckel Chart appearing in school textbooks even well after they had been proven a hoax. While there continues to be a growing chorus of dissent among the scientific community as to the viability of the prevalent Darwinian Macroevolutionary theories (and, ironically, it is self-defeating as it increasingly fails to adapt fast enough to maintain plausibility), it is still a concept firmly entrenched in the America psyche as fact.

Well, they are no longer content to sit fixated on that issue any longer. Continuing down the path of pantheistic nature-worship, they are now fighting to establish the Global Warming Theory as irrefutable fact. A major salvo was launched this past month by Dr. Heidi Cullen of The Weather Channel. In one of her recent blog posts, Dr. Cullen stated her belief that the American Meteorological Society (AMS) should withdraw their "Seal of Approval" from any meteorologist who does not tow the party line in subscribing to and publicly supporting the Global Warming Theory should have their "Seal of Approval" revoked. The statement generated quite an outcry, and in a subsequent blog post she stated the following:
I've read all your comments saying I want to silence meteorologists who are skeptical of the science of global warming. That is not true. The point of my post was never to stifle discussion. It was to raise it to a level that doesn't confuse science and politics. Freedom of scientific expression is essential.
Actually, Dr. Cullen, you stated that those meteorologists who expressed such skepticism of the Global Warming Theory were unable to "distinguish between solid, peer-reviewed science and junk political controversy." In other words, you are free to be a skeptic all you want...so long as you keep your mouth shut.

She goes on to say: "Many of you have accused me and The Weather Channel of taking a political position on global warming. That is not our intention. " Dr. Cullen, you ARE making it political by your ridicule and advocacy of punitive actions for those who dare disagree with you.

Yes, we are well aware of the AMS's public position on Global Warming, but perhaps you should also read their Statement on Freedom of Scientific Expression:

Advances in science and the benefits of science to policy, technological progress, and society as a whole depend upon the free exchange of scientific data and information as well as on open debate. The ability of scientists to present their findings to the scientific community, policy makers, the media, and the public without censorship, intimidation, or political interference is imperative. With the specific limited exception of proprietary information or constraints arising from national security, scientists must be permitted unfettered communication of scientific results. In return, it is incumbent upon scientists to communicate their findings in ways that portray their results and the results of others, objectively, professionally, and without sensationalizing or politicizing the associated impacts.

Contrary to Dr. Cullen's bluster, this is all about politics. Take a minute to read Melanie Morgan's article on the political leanings of The Weather Channel over at WorldNetDaily, and ABC-TV's AMS-certified meteorologist Marc Morano in his response to Dr. Cullen's call for decertification.

Labels: ,

The Crime of Spanking

I wish I could say I'm surprised, but I'm not.

A California state legislator is drafting a bill that would outlaw spanking children, specifically children three years old or younger. The bill would make such spanking a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 and as much as a year in jail. The legislator said that the law "would allow people who view a beating to say, `Excuse me, that's against the law.' ''

Where do I begin? First of all, the LAST thing we need is yet another "Nanny State" law that has the government telling us how we are to live. The state does not know better than I do what is best for myself and for my family.

Secondly, I am a parent who firmly believes in the effective use of spanking. It is an extremely effective response to willful defiance in a child. All three of my children have received a swat on the butt before the age of three as the result of an act of willful defiance. In every case though it has not been done in anger, and it was done knowing that they would understand why. I see no practical purpose at all in spanking an 18-month-old child, because (as the article also points out) they would not understand why it happened.

I have seen how we raise our children and how well-behaved they are as a result, and I have seen how other couples we know raise their children and how their behavior has reflected on it. It is not the state's job (or is right) to dictate how I am or am not to raise my child. It is enough that they attempt to systematically brainwash them through the public school system.

The richest part of this though was the end of the above-linked article:
For the record, she does not have children and says she was not slapped as a child. But she does have a cat named Snoop, which her veterinarian told her never to hit.

``And if you never hit a cat,'' Lieber said, ``you should never hit a kid.''

Why is this not at all surprising? If there is ever an area that one should NOT be dictating policy on unless they have direct personal experience, it is parenting.

By the way, if one of our cats strikes at me or otherwise defies me, I do not give the cat a time out :)

Labels: ,

Tuesday, January 16, 2007

A Womb With A View

Above is a computer-generated image from a "four-dimensional scan" of triplets in the womb. My youngest is only five years old, and the only ultrasound pictures available to us back then were the standard fuzzy black-and-white prints. Of course, my parents always commented upon seeing the scans of our children that there was no such thing back when my sisters and I were born.

I have to wonder how Roe vs Wade would have turned out had those defending the life of innocent children been able to show pictures like the one above to those in the courtroom. As it is, these will be a wonderful addition to the arsenal of evidence against the atrociously evil practice of late-term abortion.

Monday, January 08, 2007

Non-Embryonic Stem Cells

Researchers at Wake Forest and Harvard have made an announcement that they have a "plentiful source" of stem cells at their disposal that do not involve destroying embryos.

The Associated Press published the announcement today that amniotic fluid has yielded stem cells that show much promise in being able to grow tissue types that can be used for regenerative medicine. While they are still uncertain just how many of the more than 220 different human cell types these stem cells will be able to generate, these and stem cell lines from other non-embryonic sources have already successfully produced a "a broad range of cells that may be valuable for therapy." According to the article, the scientists have already managed to "turn amniotic fluid stem cells into heart cells that could be grown into replacement valves."

The issue of stem cell research continues to be a hot topic. This obviously puts one more hole in the case for the life-destroying harvest of embryonic stem cells. Don't expect them to back down though. As one wise slashdot commentator said:

If we agree not to harvest embryos for stem cells because they are human, then they must be human when considering an abortion. If an embryo is not human, then why the rub about abortion?
More comments later...

Wednesday, January 03, 2007

Well, so much for that!

I guess the 32-18 whooping that Michigan received from USC on New Year's Day pretty effectively silences the whole "we're the best team in the country on a neutral field" argument. Be happy, Michigan fans...the BCS saved you from an epic embarassment at the hands of the Ohio State Buckeyes.

As for the National Championship Game...well, I think the thrilling Boise State - Oklahoma game shows us we better not underestimate the danger of skilled offensive playcalling or the devastating impact "trick" plays can have. Having watched what Urban Meyer did here for Bowling Green, I think this game will be a lot closer than many think. I highly doubt though that Tressel will fail to recognize that or to keep his team focused.

Only five more days until we show the world again!