Beliefs and Theories: Religion vs. Science

Many years ago, I read Paul Watzlawick's How Real Is Real, which made a great point about the difference between belief and opinion.

Basically, a person's beliefs are immutable. A person will die before they change their beliefs. On the other hand, opinions can change over the course of a lifetime. Even the strongest opinions can be changed. (I am paraphrasing from memory as I could not find my copy of the book if my life depended on it.)

James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal had a quote today that reminded me of Watzlawick's book:

...science-minded people often scoff at those who do not "believe in evolution." The problem with this is not that they are wrong to defend evolution, but that they mistake evolution, a scientific theory, for a belief system. When you demand adherence to a set of beliefs, you are no longer doing science but something that has the form, if not the substance, of religion.

Too often, we tend to give science too much credit. In essence, we give science a blind faith that is undeserved, and frequently not even sought by the scientists involved.

When someone says, "I have a theory...", you will listen and give the person's supposition a fair hearing, usually accepting or rejecting said "theory" on it's own merits or demerits, with some weight lent to the person's credibility. But let a scientist give you a theory, and most people will more likely than not accept it on faith.

Let more than one scientist espouse a theory, and most people will take it as if Moses came down from the mountain holding tablets. It becomes gospel at that point.

I apologize for the religious terminology, but therein lies the problem: Too many people treat science as a religion.

Ironically, both science and religion have their theories. For example, is the Creation story a myth or a fact? Even among different religions, there is no agreement on this subject. If asked about this, most scientists would give you the "Big Bang Theory", or the "Evolution Theory", as explanations of how the world came to be. The problem in this discussion is that neither science nor religion have conclusive proof to back up their respective claims. That said, I personally lend more credence to science in this debate, but that is my OPINION.

When science gives you a theory, it should be remembered it is exactly that: a theory, to be judged on it's own merits or demerits.

If your religion told you that you needed to do something that wasn't logical, would you question why? If they came back with "God said so", that might be good enough, although I personally would want a little more than that. I might need philosophical backup to support my religion's belief. Even then, it might not hit my personal belief system, and remain limited to my opinion system. In other words, I would retain my doubts.

So when science tells you that you need to do something, would you question it? If they tell you "studies show...", would you immediately change your life? For many, the answer is a blind yes.

But what happens when later scientific studies disprove the original studies? You would think "once burned, twice shy" would apply to our views of science, yet how many times have scientific theories, backed up by studies, later get overturned, yet we continue to lend blind faith to science?

Even worse, what happens when scientists fudge the data, then hide the data, while using political machinations to keep opposing scientists from proving them wrong, as recently happened with the Global Warming theory? I am amazed that there are STILL people who believe the flawed theory of Global Warming blindly.

If you don't believe me, just visit Copenhagen this week.

Fox News and Climategate Killed Big Journalism

“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” - Jon Stewart

What is sad in the above comment is the fact a comedian is discussing a scandal BEFORE ABC, CBS, or NBC news have even mentioned it. And they have yet to mention Climategate.

How does a scandal, that involves a scientific theory driving government policy decisions all over the world, get ignored by a major news organization? There was a time when any news editor worth anything would have been utterly ashamed to get scooped by another news organization on a major story, yet these organizations continue to ignore this story even AFTER Congressional investigations have been requested. How can this be?

There is only one answer, and it isn't pretty: The news media is no longer employing journalists. They employ propagandists. If you want to see or read journalism, look to the Internet.

I blame Fox News for this. The irony is that it wasn't Fox News Corp's NEWS shows that did it: It was their opinion shows. Whenever you hear Leftists talk about the evil of Fox News, they always mention the opinion shows: Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck. And since Fox News gets the ratings, all the other news shows look to duplicate Fox's success.

But when you look at network news shows, they USED to be strictly about reporting the news. But they saw Fox's OPINION show success, and they sought to duplicate it. Unfortunately, the network news was filled with Left-leaning journalists, so they jazzed up the network news with Left-leaning opinions. Unfortunately, it didn't help their ratings, and made news anchors like Bret Hume seem absolutely objective.

By the time of Climategate, the network news was so beholden to the Left, they couldn't even report a news story they would have been tripping over themselves to get thirty years ago.

But now they have been scooped by a comedy show, which leaves the average viewer to look upon the naked kings and see them for what they really are: propaganda arms for big corporations who spew Leftist altruism in order to secure their own power.

Contrary to what the average news consumer has been told, the science behind Global Warming theory has NOT been settled, since it was never actually reviewed. Regardless of whether Global Warming is true or not, the news consumer can look upon the news purveyors with a critical eye, and see the naked bias.

What worries me is HOW the news consumer will choose to interpret this event. Will they merely turn away from the liberal news organizations who lied to them? Of course, but then...do they turn JUST to Fox News for telling the truth? I suspect many of them will. However, I personally hope they use this event to teach them to view news stories with a discriminating eye. Never trust any single news source on it's own.

The irony in the case of Climategate is that it is a news story at all. Anyone with a brain in their head could see the great flaw in Global Warming theory. It doesn't take into account the heating and cooling of the single greatest source of "global warming": the sun.

Unfortunately, big media put all their eggs in the Global Warming basket, and to report that it might be wrong would make them look like what they are: fools. So rather than report something that makes them look wrong, they choose to ignore the story and hope nobody notices. Maybe they are right. Just speaking for myself, it has been years since I watched a network news broadcast.

The Light Bulb on Climategate

Anyone out there still under the anthropogenic Global Warming delusion?

It may be difficult to come to terms with the fact you have been duped by some climate scientists, but as the Washington Post reports:

Electronic files that were stolen from a prominent climate research center and made public last week provide a rare glimpse into the behind-the-scenes battle to shape the public perception of global warming.

...In one e-mail, the [Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia's] director, Phil Jones, writes Pennsylvania State University's Michael E. Mann and questions whether the work of academics that question the link between human activities and global warming deserve to make it into the prestigious IPCC report, which represents the global consensus view on climate science.

"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report," Jones writes. "Kevin and I will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

In another, Jones and Mann discuss how they can pressure an academic journal not to accept the work of climate skeptics with whom they disagree. "Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal," Mann writes.

And these are just a few examples for the public to wrap their heads around. Yes folks, the science is not only "not settled", it has had a huge hole blown in it by the simple fact that scientists were using every political means available to them to silence detractors, from intentionally keeping the data used for their research away from potentially skeptical researchers, to applying pressure to peer-review journals to keep the opposing research from being seen.

But don't feel bad. Here's the first Climategate joke from James Taranto at the Wall Street Journal:

Q: How many climate scientists does it take to change a light bulb?
A: None. There's a consensus that it's going to change, so they've decided to keep us in the dark.

Stop the country! I wanna get off!

Headlines from Drudge:

Climategate: 'Greatest scandal in modern science'...
Call for Congressional investigation...
Paper: Junk science exposed among climate-change believers...

And the pièce de résistance:

Obama: 'Step closer' to climate deal...

Can our glorious leader be any more clueless? NO HE CAN'T!

Global Warming and Prostitution

“Climate change could reduce income from farming and fishing, possibly driving some women into sex work and thereby increase HIV infection." - Suneeta Mukherjee, Philippine representative of the United Nations Food Population Fund

What is funny about the inherent stupidity of that comment, is the article (link here) which includes it actually gives the REAL problem causing the high levels of prostitution in the Philippines:

Of the 92 million Filipinos, about 60 percent are living in coastal areas and depend on the seas for livelihood, said former Environment secretary Dr. Angel Alcala.

Alcala said that “we have already exceeded the carrying capacity of our marine environment."

But as the sea’s resources are depleted due to overpopulation and overfishing, fishermen start losing their livelihood and women are forced to share the traditional role of the man in providing for the family.

So explain how "overpopulation and overfishing" are caused by the myth of anthropogenic Global Warming?

Actually, I have figured out one side effect of Global Warming: It fries people's brains. Unfortunately, it is not the heat, but rather the inherent stupidity of the concept of Global Warming.

Money and Gore

It is nice to see a leftist rag like the New York Times finally admit that Al Gore is making a fortune from Global Warming. However, I don't think it detracts from his message, any more than Global Warming sceptics lose credibility when they have oil company investments. While it might paint their messages in a different light, it does not take away from the inherent truth or lies contained therein.

The political tactic of "killing the messenger" does not work in scientific debates. Even if a person has an ulterior motive, their message must be taken at face value, and must be refuted on it's own value or lack thereof.

You don't need to attack Gore to debunk the Global Warming theory, which is still ignoring several important factors:

1. It fails to account for how changes in the sun impact our atmosphere. We have seen a correlation between sunspots and the Earth's temperature. Yet Global Warming theory places carbon dioxide as a more important factor on the Earth's atmosphere than our planet's PRIMARY source of heat?

2. During the period of the dinosaurs, Earth's atmosphere contained larger concentrations of carbon dioxide than it currently does, yet both flora and fauna flourished. If Global Warming is so horrible for the Earth, then how do they account for this?

You don't need to attack Al Gore to find the holes in his message.

No beef in global warming stupidity

From the timesonline.com:

People will need to turn vegetarian if the world is to conquer climate change, according to a leading authority on global warming.

In an interview with The Times, Lord Stern of Brentford said: “Meat is a wasteful use of water and creates a lot of greenhouse gases. It puts enormous pressure on the world’s resources. A vegetarian diet is better.”

Let us assume for the moment that Lord Stern is correct, and we follow his absurd advice.

Everyone stops eating meat from cows and chickens and other domesticated animals. Of course, based on Lord Stern's argument about these animals using too much water and creating greenhouse gases, I assume we will be discontinuing the consumption of milk and other dairy products, since their continued consumption would create no net reduction in water usage or greenhouse gases. So no more cheese, milk, eggs, etc.

After we go on our strictly vegetarian diet, what will become of all these farm animals? If we release them into the wild, most of them will die, although some might survive, continuing to use water and create greenhouse gases. No, we will have to slaughter all of them. Who knows which cow fart might lead to the end of the world as we know it?

Naturally, unemployment will rise as all dairy workers will be out of a job. On the bright side, Global Warming will be creating more arable land in currently cold climates, so there will be plenty of farming jobs available. We will need them too, since we will all be consuming more vegetation. However, if Lord Stern's plan works, even this avenue for employment might be closed. This also means there will be less food available for the world's current population. But the deaths of millions is fine, since they will also be creating fewer greenhouse gases. It might even solve the unemployment problem!

When all is said and done, assuming Lord Stern is correct, we will save the planet from Global Warming, but have fewer people and jobs, and all dairy animals will be extinct.

This reminds me of the old Sam Cooke song:

Don't know much about history,
don't know much biology.
Don't know much about a science book,
don't know much about the french I took.
But I do know that I love you,
and I know that if you love me, too,
what a wonderful world this would be.

Global Warmers like Lord Stern definitely "don't know much", but will they still be calling it a "wonderful world" after they get done with it?

Quote of the Day: Global Warming Edition

"We cannot predict weather accurately for more than a week, why should we allow the same predictions to be accepted for all of the future? The answer is we should not." - George Giles (from lewrockwell.com)

Ground Control to Major Simpson...

It is news stories like this that make me think Homer Simpson is working for Nasa now (from the Guardian. Headline in bold):

Nasa aims to move Earth
Scientists' answer to global warming: nudge the planet farther from Sun

Scientists have found an unusual way to prevent our planet overheating: move it to a cooler spot.

All you have to do is hurtle a few comets at Earth, and its orbit will be altered. Our world will then be sent spinning into a safer, colder part of the solar system.

This startling idea of improving our interplanetary neighbourhood is the brainchild of a group of Nasa engineers and American astronomers who say their plan could add another six billion years to the useful lifetime of our planet - effectively doubling its working life.

...The plan put forward by Dr Laughlin, and his colleagues Don Korycansky and Fred Adams, involves carefully directing a comet or asteroid so that it sweeps close past our planet and transfers some of its gravitational energy to Earth.

'Earth's orbital speed would increase as a result and we would move to a higher orbit away from the Sun,' Laughlin said.

Engineers would then direct their comet so that it passed close to Jupiter or Saturn, where the reverse process would occur. It would pick up energy from one of these giant planets. Later its orbit would bring it back to Earth, and the process would be repeated.

What happens if you miss, and one of those comets happens to hit the Earth?

DOH!

The "Warm" has turned

Robert Tracinski and Tom Minchin point out how it looks like Australia might have finally come to its' senses regarding the whole Global Warming scam:

As the US Congress considers the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill, the Australian Senate is on the verge of rejecting its own version of cap-and-trade. The story of this legislation's collapse offers advance notice for what might happen to similar legislation in the US—and to the whole global warming hysteria.

Since the Australian government first introduced its Emission Trading Scheme (ETS) legislation—the Australian version of cap-and-trade energy rationing—there has been a sharp shift in public opinion and political momentum against the global warming crusade. This is a story that offers hope to defenders of industrial civilization—and a warning to American environmentalists that the climate change they should be afraid of just might be a shift in the intellectual climate.

Tracinski and Minchin continue by pointing to that rarest of events. The conversion of a Global Warming advocate:

One of the most remarkable changes occurred on April 13, when leading global warming hysteric Paul Sheehan—who writes for the main Sydney newspaper, the Sydney Morning Herald, which has done as much to hype the threat of global warming as any Australian newspaper—reviewed Plimer's book and admitted he was taken aback. He describes Plimer, correctly, as "one of Australia's foremost Earth scientists," and praised the book as "brilliantly argued" and "the product of 40 years' research and breadth of scholarship."

What does Plimer's book say? Here is Sheehan's summary:

Much of what we have read about climate change, [Plimer] argues, is rubbish, especially the computer modeling on which much current scientific opinion is based, which he describes as "primitive."…

The Earth's climate is driven by the receipt and redistribution of solar energy. Despite this crucial relationship, the sun tends to be brushed aside as the most important driver of climate. Calculations on supercomputers are primitive compared with the complex dynamism of the Earth's climate and ignore the crucial relationship between climate and solar energy.

To reduce modern climate change to one variable, CO2, or a small proportion of one variable—human-induced CO2—is not science. To try to predict the future based on just one variable (CO2) in extraordinarily complex natural systems is folly.

I put in bold the part above, which is what I have been saying for years, yet the Religion of Global Warming parishioners cannot seem to refute it.

But I digress. Back to Tracinski and Minchin's story about how cap-and-trade is doing in the Australian Senate:

There are 7 other votes in the Senate: five Greens who say the scheme doesn't go far enough but who could be induced to go along; one independent, Nick Xenophon, who has pledged to vote against the bill unless the government waits till after Copenhagen; and one other, Senator Steve Fielding of the Family First Party, who has decided to investigate the whole thing first hand. Fielding could turn out to be the single deciding vote.

...Fielding went to the US to assess the American evidence for global warming at close quarters. As Melbourne's Age reported on June 4:

Senator Fielding said he was impressed by some of the data presented at the [US Heartland Institute's] climate change skeptics' conference: namely that, although carbon emissions had increased in the last 10 years, global temperature had not.

He said scientists at the conference had advanced other explanations, such as the relationship between solar activity and solar energy hitting the Earth to explain climate change.

Fielding has issued a challenge to the Obama White House to rebut the data. It will be a novel experience for them, as Fielding is an engineer and has an Australian's disregard for self-important government officials. Here is how The Age described his challenge:

Senator Fielding emailed graphs that claim the globe had not warmed for a decade to Joseph Aldy, US President Barack Obama's special assistant on energy and the environment, after a meeting on Thursday…. Senator Fielding said he found that Dr. Aldy and other Obama administration officials were not interested in discussing the legitimacy of climate science.

Telling an Australian you're not interested in the legitimacy of your position is a red rag to a bull. So here is what Fielding concluded:

Until recently I, like most Australians, simply accepted without question the notion that global warming was a result of increased carbon emissions. However, after speaking to a cross-section of noted scientists, including Ian Plimer, a professor at the University of Adelaide and author of Heaven and Earth, I quickly began to understand that the science on this issue was by no means conclusive….

As a federal senator, I would be derelict in my duty to the Australian people if I did not even consider whether or not the scientific assumptions underpinning this debate were in fact correct.

At least the Australians seem to be smart enough to recognize bull when they hear it, even if it took them awhile. In the meantime, the U.S. is stuck with Obama's Global Warming cultists running the show, who make policy on faith, not science. All we can do is hope the American people come to their senses before the fools in Washington throw another log on the true "warming" problem: the economic meltdown.

What if the Earth is warming?

Let us assume for the moment that Al Gore is right, and the Earth is warming. What potential consequences would that have for human life on this planet?

This is the premise of an insightful article by Vin Suprynowicz (link here). His article reports that cold temperatures are more hazardous to human lives than warm temperatures. He backs this up with references to many studies that prove his point, including the following:

In early 2008, the Department of Health of the UK released “Health Effects of Climate Change in the UK 2008,” an update of previous reports from 2001/2002, edited by Sari Kovats. They used IPCC models that predicted 2.5 C to 3 C mean temperature increases in the U.K. by 2100. They found that there was no increase in heat-related deaths from 1971–2002, despite warming in summers, suggesting that the UK population is adapting to warmer conditions. But cold-related mortality fell by more than a third in all regions. The overall trend in mortality for the warming from 1971–2002 was beneficial. They state, in summary, that “Winter deaths will continue to decline as the climate warms.”

His conclusion is perfect:

Global warming (if it should continue) will save lives – lots of them. Nor is this counterintuitive. Since our early ancestors developed and prospered in warm climates – most likely in equatorial Africa – why shouldn’t it hold true that our species will do best in moderately warmer climates?

Humans are masters of adaptation, but it still takes a lot more work to survive in the cold. The “climate change” we should really worry about is the next Ice Age, which could see everything north of Columbus, Ohio covered by an ice shelf a mile thick.

Do the “global warming” fanatics think we can prevent that by burning lots of coal and putting lots of miles on our SUVs? If so, shouldn’t we start right now, just in case?

Heads we warm, tails we cool

From Foxnews.com:

"...Is it getting cooler or warmer?

The answer, according to a new study, is that we need to concentrate on the long-term trend, which points to an overall warming tendency over these past hundred years.

The great majority of climate scientists agree that it's getting warmer in many places around the world. The cause, they also agree, is heat-trapping carbon dioxide produced by human technology.

But how does this square with the observed fact that over the past decade world temperature has actually stayed the same, or even gone down?

Two scientists, Michael F. Wehner and David R. Easterling, show that such decade-long fluctuations are quite common in weather history. From day to day, season to season, and year to year, the weather shows great variability thanks to natural factors like capricious wind patterns and ocean currents.

Changes in climate -- that is, changes in typical weather conditions over long periods of time -- are more difficult to assess."

But if it is difficult to assess, then how can one make an argument for or against Global Warming?

But let us continue:

Wehner, who works at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in Berkeley, Calif., says that the long-term trend really is toward a warmer planet, but that a single year, 1998, has temporarily thrown off the overall upward march in temperature.

In that year, an immense transfer of heat from the western to the eastern Pacific occurred: El Nino (Spanish for "Christ Child"), which often coincides with Christmas time. An El Nino event can have a major impact on rainfall patterns and temperatures over several continents.

El Nino and other weather factors can cause a short reversal in the warming trend for a year. A 10-year reversal is less likely, but still possible. Just as in throwing a coin, seven heads in a row is unexpected, but it does happen now and then.

In the journal Geophysical Review Letters, Wehner says that even a period of 20 years of modest cooling -- the equivalent of throwing 20 heads in a row -- would not reverse the scientific finding that long-term world temperature is trending upward; the trend is based on data now stretching back more than a century.

So basically, our understanding of recent climate change comes down to...chance.

Climate scientists can claim the long term trend is toward warming, yet their best explanation for a short term reversal is mere chance?

By the way, do you know the odds of throwing 20 heads in a row? 1 in 1,048,576. The entire Global Warming theory comes down to odds that long?

It is safe to stop calling Global Warming a "theory", and start calling it a "lottery".

Et tu Bob?

I was seriously considering voting for Libertarian candidate Bob Barr for president in November. I decided some time ago that I have one litmus test for 2008 presidential candidates: Global Warming. If a candidate supported that hoax, I was not going to vote for them, since obviously they are too stupid to be president. Of Obama, McCain, and Barr, only Barr passed that test.

Until now.

From the LRC Blog:

On the Glenn Beck show, in early June, Barr said, "Global warming is a myth. And yet it`s being used by the environmental folks, by the internationalists. A lot of the pressure is coming from the United Nations and other countries. Some of which, like China, of course, are pushing the Kyoto Protocol. Why? Because they`re exempt. It`s going to saddle us. And what is McCain doing? He`s out there buying into this global warming, carbon emission cap and trade."

Now Barr says, "Former Vice President Al Gore and I have met privately to discuss the issue of global warming, and I was pleased and honored that he invited me to attend the 'We' Campaign event. Global warming is a reality as most every organization that has studied the matter has concluded, whether conservative-leaning, liberal oriented or independent."

He gives the caveat that he is "aware that scientists differ on its causes, impact and remedies" and is "firmly committed to free market solutions and innovations to address this issue; not tax-driven policies."

Sorry Bob, you just lost my vote.

RIP George Carlin

I was saddened to hear of George Carlin's death, because that means a voice of reason has left us. Most people thought of Carlin as a comedian, but he was actually a philosopher delivering his message with humor.

Last year, I posted one of his routines, which was one of the best rants I ever heard against environmentalism and the Global Warming silliness. Below is a video of the same routine (slightly altered) by Carlin:

George, we will miss you, and tell the Big Electron I said hi.

Government at work

It can make you laugh at it's absurdities, or angry that you're paying for it, or even cry in frustration, but government is amazing at it's ability to display incompetence, from the highest elected politician, down to it's lowest bureaucrat.

PORK ALERT!
For all this incompetence, one might ask whether we pay politicians too much, or even not enough. Don't worry: They take what they want. As the Fox News documentary “Porked: Earmarks for Profit” shows, at least three U.S. congressmen (two Republicans and one Democrat) managed to get earmarks for either their own or their family's profit.

Here is one example for you from Fox News:

In February 2004, [former Speaker of the House Dennis] Hastert, with partners and through a trust that did not bear his name, bought up 69 acres of land that adjoined his farm some 60 miles outside Chicago. The price was $340,000. In May 2005, Hastert transferred an additional 69 acres from his farm into the trust.

Two months later, Congress passed a spending bill into which Hastert inserted a $207 million earmark to fund the “Prairie Parkway” which, when completed, would run just a few miles from the 138 acres owned by Hastert’s trust.

After President Bush flew to Hastert’s district in August 2005 to sign the bill, Hastert and his partners flipped the land for what appeared to be a multi-million dollar profit.

THE GLOBAL WARMING HOT POTATO
The issue of man-made Global Warming has been tabled temporarily, thanks to over 31,000 American scientists who have signed a petition which states:

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catostrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate.

So now that we have decided there is NOT a problem which requires immediate attention, what does the U.S. Senate do? They are debating the America's Climate Security Act of 2007, more affectionately called "The Lieberman-Warner Cap and Trade Bill" by the National Center for Public Policy Research.

What will the bill get us?

...Lieberman-Warner would have virtually no effect on the climate, according to Dr. Patrick Michaels, a former president of the American Association of State Climatologists and now senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute: "Say the U.S. actually does what the law says, though no one knows how to. The result is an additional 0.013 degrees (C) of 'prevented' warming," says Michaels.

And the potential cost? (from Forbes.com)

According to a study released by the National Association of Manufacturers earlier this year, Lieberman-Warner would cause 1.8 million job losses, as much as a $210 billion gross domestic product reduction and possibly a 33% increase in electricity prices by 2020.

But with all this comes good and bad news. The good news is the Senate will probably not pass it. Even if they do, President Bush has already said he will veto it.

The bad news? Both Barack Obama and John McCain have said they want to institute a similar system.

NOT MARRIED IN NEW YORK
What can you say about a court clerk working in an understaffed office who refuses to perform a wedding ceremony because she is "too tired"?

I know what I say. This is your government at work.

Ed's Sunday Sermon: Happy Earth Hour!

Everyone complains about the weather, but no one does anything about it. - Mark Twain

I was reading "Cities go dark to mark Earth Hour" over at CNN.com:

From Rome's Colosseum to the Sydney Opera House to the Sears Tower's famous antennas in Chicago, floodlit icons of civilization have gone dark for Earth Hour, a worldwide campaign to highlight the waste of electricity and the threat of climate change.

Ah "the threat of climate change". It is almost like being afraid of the sun rising in the morning.

The environmental group WWF has urged governments, businesses and households to turn back to candle power for at least 60 minutes Saturday starting at 8 p.m. wherever they were.

Candle power? I don't suppose the brain surgeons at the WWF know what candles produce? Good old carbon dioxide, that infamous cause of "Global Warming". But why let a little science get in the way of a good cause?

The campaign began last year in Australia and traveled this year from the South Pacific to Europe in cadence with the setting of the sun.

"What's amazing is that it's transcending political boundaries and happening in places like China, Vietnam, Papua New Guinea," said Andy Ridley, executive director of Earth Hour. "It really seems to have resonated with anybody and everybody."

Stupidity knows no national boundaries.

Earth Hour officials hoped 100 million people would turn off their nonessential lights and electronic goods for the hour. Electricity plants produce greenhouse gases that fuel climate change.

Fortunately, the other 5.9 billion people aren't in the dark.

The truth is that Earth Hour isn't about saving the planet. It is about spreading the political belief that humans are responsible for something the Earth does anyway. Climate change has been happening since the Earth was created, and will continue to happen regardless of whether humans are on this planet.

Once more, let me remind everyone that manmade Global Warming is a scientific THEORY, not a fact. Considering the huge number of factors that go into changing the Earth's climate, and considering the limited amount of time we have been measuring the Earth's climate, this subject requires far more objective study before any actions are taken.

Let's move from theories to some simple facts:

What happens when the air is warmer? More water evaporates.

What happens when you get more water in the atmosphere? More clouds are formed.

What happens when more clouds are formed? More of the sun's light is reflected away from the planet.

What happens when the Earth gets less sunlight on the surface of the planet? The planet cools.

What happens when the air is cooler? Less water evaporates.

What happens when you get less water in the atmosphere? Fewer clouds are formed.

What happens when there are fewer clouds? More of the sun's light hits the surface.

What happens when the Earth gets more sunlight on the surface of the planet? The planet warms.

This isn't rocket science folks. This is the never ending cycle of warming and cooling this planet goes through every year.

But at least the Irish got it right in the CNN.com story:

Ireland's more than 7,000 pubs elected not to take part, in part because of the risk that Saturday night revelers could end up smashing glasses, falling down stairs or setting themselves on fire with candles.

For the Irish, "Happy hour" is more important than Earth Hour, as well it should be for the rest of us.

RIP: Global Warming?

"Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming"

This is how Michael Asher's blog over at Dailytech.com begins. While the blog (which was reported by Drudge Report) is a bit over the top in it's declaration of the end of Global Warming, if you go to the sources Asher is using for this epithet, you will see there is a SIGNIFICANT trend in global cooling. Whether it is an actual trend, or just a blip, only time will tell.

Unless you listen to the "Religion of the Global Warming Scare" (headed by Pope Al Gore), you will realize that global cooling is a far greater threat to mankind than any amount of warming we have seen historically, with the "Little Ice Age" being the best example of how global cooling can hurt mankind.

Mind you, I am NOT sounding the alarms on global cooling. Nor am I heeding the scare tactics of the Global Warming crowd. The plain simple fact is that Global Warming was, and is, a scientific theory. If climatologists begin claiming that global cooling is happening based on the data, that too will be a scientific theory. The FACT is that climatology has NOT been able to accurately predict what global temperatures will do in the past (the Global Cooling scare of the 1970's is a prime example of this).

Ironically, in both the Global Cooling and the current Global Warming scares, mankind was blamed as the primary cause, in spite of the fact that significant global warming and cooling have occurred throughout the history of this planet prior to mankind's industrialization. Yet we still view ourselves as the center of the universe, with all things happening because of US.

I have said it before, but it is worth repeating:

If you look back on mankind's history, whenever something bad happened, such as famine or disease, mankind's natural reaction was that the gods were causing it to happen because they were displeased with humans. In essence, mankind was responsible for the famines or diseases they experienced.

To this day, we assume nothing happens in the universe unless mankind causes it.

In psychology, a human infant assumes they are the center of the universe, since they know nothing else except themselves. As a species, humans are being infantile when we assume that everything that happens in the universe is caused by us.

Grow up people.

Ed's Sunday Sermon: The Arrogance of Mankind

I was going to continue today where I left off last Sunday with part 2 of "Religionism vs. Deism", but something else caught my attention.

It is hard to ignore a headline that reads, "Mankind 'shortening the universe's life'". But this story at the Telegraph got me thinking:

Forget about the threat that mankind poses to the Earth: our activities may be shortening the life of the universe too.

The startling claim is made by a pair of American cosmologists investigating the consequences for the cosmos of quantum theory...

But there is an odd feature of the theory that philosophers and scientists still argue about. In a nutshell, the theory suggests that we change things simply by looking at them and theorists have puzzled over the implications for years.

They often illustrate their concerns about what the theory means with mind-boggling experiments, notably Schrodinger's cat in which, thanks to a fancy experimental set up, the moggy is both alive and dead until someone decides to look, when it either carries on living, or dies. That is, by one interpretation (by another, the universe splits into two, one with a live cat and one with a dead one.)

New Scientist reports a worrying new variant as the cosmologists claim that astronomers may have accidentally nudged the universe closer to its death by observing dark energy, a mysterious anti gravity force which is thought to be speeding up the expansion of the cosmos.

The damaging allegations are made by Profs Lawrence Krauss of Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio, and James Dent of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, who suggest that by making this observation in 1998 we may have caused the cosmos to revert to an earlier state when it was more likely to end. "Incredible as it seems, our detection of the dark energy may have reduced the life-expectancy of the universe," Prof Krauss tells New Scientist.

In summary, merely by observing what is happening in the universe, we affect it's outcome, regardless of whether we can truly perform any actions to change what is a natural phenomena.

The problem with this theory is obvious. If you see a mile-wide asteroid moving at an incredible rate of speed when it is exactly twenty feet above your head, will your perception of it have any impact on what happens? Of course not.

On the other hand, if you see a mile-wide asteroid moving towards the Earth at a speed which will cause it to hit the Earth in approximately two months, will your perception of it have any impact on what happens? Possibly, but only if action is taken.

The flaw in Krauss and Dent's theory is that our perception of dark energy has somehow effected it. Perhaps in the future we MAY affect it, but our perception of it does NOT affect what dark energy does in the universe UNTIL we can somehow take an action which will change it. Most of the universe is unobserved by mankind. Does that mean our lack of perception somehow protects us from it? That it isn't doing anything UNTIL we perceive it?

This theory reminds me of the old philosophical question, "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" It would seem ironic that the first modern appearance of this question was in a 1910 physics book. But based on how science today seems to be overly concerned with how man affects the universe, we have to wonder whether science and philosophy are really as separated as they should be, although I personally believe there will come a time when science and philosophy will overlap. But it is too soon now.

Science needs to remain as objective as possible, and above questions of philosophy, which are inevitably tethered to human politics.

To return to Krauss and Dent's theory, they assume there were two possible outcomes to the universe prior to our observation of dark energy: the universe was eternal or the universe had a set lifespan. This is comparable to saying that because someone heard a sound, the tree fell, and if no one had heard it, then it wouldn't have fallen. Just like the tree would have fallen regardless of whether anyone heard a sound, the universe would have ended eventually regardless of whether human perception discovered dark energy.

But Krauss and Dent, by blaming the end of the universe on mankind, are a reminder of a current belief that mankind has greater impact on his environment than it actually does.

One only has to look at Global Warming to see that mankind has an overinflated opinion of itself. We hear all these things that we produce are causing Global Warming, in spite of the important fact that nature produces greater quantities than mankind, even while the single greatest cause of Global Warming, the sun, is ignored.

If you look back on mankind's history, whenever something bad happened, such as famine or disease, mankind's natural reaction was that the gods were causing it to happen because they were displeased with humans. In essence, mankind was responsible for the famines or diseases they experienced.

To this day, we assume nothing happens in the universe unless mankind causes it.

Five hundred years ago, Copernicus moved the Earth from the center of the universe. In 1918, Harlow Shapley determined that our sun was not at the center of our galaxy. Yet, we are STILL determined to be the center of the universe. We ignore basic facts in favor of wildly speculative theories, because these theories support the misguided belief that we are the center of the universe.

There is a good reason why pride is considered one of the "seven deadly sins". While mankind has much to be proud of, we cannot place our value above the universe. When we value theories over facts because the theories appeal to our pride, that is not only a sin, but stupidity at it's worst. To claim we can cause the universe to end, or the Earth to warm, is arrogance worthy of a god. We are no gods.

Friday funnies

Too much funny stuff today, so I thought I would lump it all into one post.

First, today's Dilbert:


Second, from Neal Boortz's website:

Mike forgot his wedding anniversary and his wife was really ticked off at him.

She told him, "Tomorrow morning, I expect to find a gift in the driveway that goes from 0 to 200 in under 6 seconds, AND IT BETTER BE THERE."

The next morning, Mike got up really early.

When his wife woke up a couple of hours later, she looked out the window, and sure enough, there was a small gift-wrapped box sitting in the middle of the driveway. Confused, the wife put on her robe, ran out to the driveway, and took the box into the house.

She opened it, and found a brand new bathroom scale.

Mike is not yet well enough to have visitors.

Finally, in the category of "I can't make this stuff up", we have this little bit of actual news from the Times Online:

Walking does more than driving to cause global warming, a leading environmentalist has calculated.

Food production is now so energy-intensive that more carbon is emitted providing a person with enough calories to walk to the shops than a car would emit over the same distance. The climate could benefit if people avoided exercise, ate less and became couch potatoes. Provided, of course, they remembered to switch off the TV rather than leaving it on standby.

Somebody needs to tell Andy Skurka about that study:

Andy Skurka is walking. Everyday, all day. In rain, snow, and scorching heat. And nothing can slow him down -- not cougars, bears or snakes. Not blisters or burning muscles. Since setting out from the Grand Canyon on April 9, Skurka has covered 3,653 miles … and he's only halfway home.

Andy Skurka's "GoLite on the Planet" walk has reached the halfway point. The nearly 7,000 mile odyssey -- roughly the distance from Los Angeles to Istanbul, Turkey -- is an effort to provide a first-hand look at the damage global warming is having on America's National Parks and wilderness areas.

Andy, stop! You're killing the planet!

Mooning Darfur

This is one of those things you have to read to believe. From an opinion piece in the Washington Post by U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki Moon:

"Amid the diverse social and political causes, the Darfur conflict began as an ecological crisis, arising at least in part from climate change.

Two decades ago, the rains in southern Sudan began to fail. According to U.N. statistics, average precipitation has declined some 40 percent since the early 1980s. Scientists at first considered this to be an unfortunate quirk of nature. But subsequent investigation found that it coincided with a rise in temperatures of the Indian Ocean, disrupting seasonal monsoons. This suggests that the drying of sub-Saharan Africa derives, to some degree, from man-made global warming.

It is no accident that the violence in Darfur erupted during the drought."

Yes folks, GLOBAL WARMING CAUSED DARFUR!!! (I can't make this stuff up.)

Fred Thompson had the following response to Moon in Fred's radio editorial yesterday:

"Why, then, would the new UN Secretary General blame climate change? I think it’s pretty obvious.

Blaming the Islamic government and groups that have manipulated events in Sudan will get him nothing but enemies. Blaming global warming, however, is basically the same thing as blaming America. America is by no means the only major source of greenhouse gases, but we've taken the most political heat. The reason is that congress rightfully balked at ratifying the Kyoto international climate treaties during the Clinton presidency.

There is simply no downside to blaming America, because Americans don't punish their ideological foes. From the UN, we don't even require sanity sometimes. And there might even be an upside to blaming us, since there are Americans who suffer from such ingrained feelings of guilt, they’ll support increased aid to both the UN and Sudan.

There is a lesson to be learned here, though. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon is arguably the most powerful man in the international community today. We know he's unwilling to blame those who actually gave the orders to commit genocide in Darfur. And apparently he's happy to shift the blame for ongoing deaths to those living peaceful, productive lives in the West.

Now hopefully we can work toward international cooperation with regard to environmental policies that make sense. It’s not very encouraging though when the head of the world’s leading international body uses climate change as an all purpose excuse in order to avoid hard realities."

The great irony which Fred misses is that Moon's editorial doesn't mention solving Global Warming as a means to solve Darfur. The closest Moon comes to it is:

"Ultimately, however, any real solution to Darfur's troubles involves sustained economic development. Precisely what shape that might take is unclear. But we must begin thinking about it. New technologies can help, such as genetically modified grains that thrive in arid soils or new irrigation and water storage techniques."

In other words, Moon thinks Global Warming is here to stay, and Darfur needs to learn to deal with it. I wonder if Moon would say the same thing to the rest of the world?