Oil of Madness

Quick.  Which country in the world has the most oil beneath it's land and territorial waters?

Which country in the world has enough coal for generating very affordable electricity for the next 200 or more years?

Which country in the whole world has not built a single nuclear reactor for generating power in over thirty years while many other nations produce as much as 90% of their electricity that way with no safety problems?

Yep.  Same country.

Which country in the entire world has such a perfect safety record with nuclear power at sea for over half a century, that all of its aircraft carriers, submarines, and now cruisers and destroyers are all being run on nuclear power?

Yep.  Same country.

Source article here.

If you think that "Big Oil" is to blame for you not being able to afford fuel at the pump, you probably also believe that movie actors want to see the prices at the box office get ridiculously expensive as well.

If you believe that it makes sense to shut down all drilling and oil recovery in all the coastal waters of the U.S. because of one rig exploding, you probably think it's a good idea to recall all cars made by GM because one had a mechanical failure that caused an accident.

You probably also believe that carbon dioxide causes earth's atmosphere to heat up.

You probably also believe that your plants understand you when you talk.

More Junk Science

Just like the argument about creation versus evolution or the Kennedy assassination, this is a subject that complicated and requires a lot of careful analysis, but most people are going to come down one side or the other without being able to explain why.

You may side with the parents and others who say that vaccinations are bad, because even though you don't have a degree in microbiology or medicine, what you have read and understand about how vaccinations are made and what they contain just doesn't pass the smell test.  Something stinks here and you'd rather err on the side of nature and history rather than letting the so-called "experts" do your thinking for you.  After all, well over 100,000 people die every year due to medical malpractice, we see how the "experts" have messed up on their estimates of everything from AIDS to the H1N1 virus.

Then there are the Rush Limbaughs of the world, and no I'm not here to bash Rush, because I used to listen to him all the time when I could.  I'm one of those people who didn't agree with every little thing he said, meaning I'm not a mind-numbed robot.  Those are the drones on the left.  Rush is mostly spot on when it comes to politics, and he sometimes chooses the right people to listen to on matters of science, but not always.  And after listening to a small segment of his show where he is talking to a mother of a child diagnosed with autism, I see he has chosen to side with the pro-vaccination side, maybe because it is pro conventional medicine/pharmaceuticals.  That alone is not a good reason to jump on this current bandwagon.  My point is that we are all biased toward a certain viewpoint and we must work hard to keep from deceiving ourselves and being deceived.

It has become so ingrained in me to question everything coming out of the media.  Doesn't matter which "side" it seems to come from.  This is mainly because people with journalism degrees can't be experts in every field that they are reporting on.  How can you ask the right questions about a plane crash when you don't know anything about aerodynamics and avionics.  The reason reporters can repeat the most egregious lie of "The gun went off." is because they know nothing about firearm design.  Add to that the problem of journalists having abandoned any pretense of being objective about anything and you've got a recipe for a general public that is misinformed and ignorant and they are totally unaware of even that.

One of the things I used to do in teaching apologetics, was to go over with my class, some story in a newspaper about something to do with scientific discovery or ongoing research.  I would read the headline and ask the class what they expected the conclusion of the article to be.  Most often it sounded like a variation of the headline, but in agreement.  Then we would read the story carefully and they would be amazed to see that there was no way one could logically conclude such a headline. I would read the first and maybe the second paragraph and ask what they thought that meant, and after the class came to a fair consensus of what the reporter was saying, I would then continue on.  By the time I got to the end of the article with all of the caveats and disclaimers, asking enough questions to get the class to really think about what the main point of the story was, they were often shocked at what the story really meant.

What is really sad about what passes for news today, is that the media really do believe that you are stupid.  And I suppose considering the election of 2008 and the ratings of the various television shows, combined with Jay Leno's "Jay Walking" segment, and Sean Hannity's "Man On The Street" interviews, I guess most Americans would rather just wallow in ignorance.  The current economic crisis proves that most people will not think about unpleasant things until the consequences force them to.

The media doesn't feel any need to present you with all the facts of a story and let you figure it out, but I suppose most Americans don't want to have to do all that hard work.  They will tell you a "study says," and you just accept it.   If it's not a study, it's "our investigation revealed."

Nowadays, because of the global warming hoax, not only can I not trust what "journalists" tell me about science, but I can't trust what a lot of people in the scientific community say about things.  I need to see the data for myself and understand how the data was collected and analyzed.

So, back to this news on the vaccines and autism.  I went and looked at one story referenced by someone on the pro-vaccine side.  What I found was a story that really didn't tell me anything from which I could figure out the truth on my own.  It told me what somebody else wanted me to conclude and left me with more questions than answers.  What is more fascinating is what I learned from what little information was in the story.

Before I go on with that, let me make it clear that if I had any children today, you could only give them vaccinations over my dead body.  Not because of Dr. Andrew Wakefield's "study," but because I've looked at what goes into the vaccines and I know enough about pharmacology.  With that said, my first question that jumped out on reading the story is, "How in the hell do you call a something involving only 12 subjects a study?"   That's not a study.  That's some anecdotal evidence.

Then there is this delicious money quote by the journalist, that is in the middle of the story as if it's a throw-away line:  "The series of articles launched Wednesday are investigative journalism, not results of a clinical study."

What does that tell me?  I'm purely guessing here, but it sounds to me like Dr. Wakefield thought he saw some things that led him to believe there might be some linkage between vaccines and autism.  He made the mistake of accepting money from some lawyers who had a vested interest in what he might come up with, given the track record of ignorant juries in medical malpractice cases.  His twelve subject "study" apparently wasn't his idea, the children being referred to him by the parents.  But does that mean that any suspicions about linkage should be dismissed out of hand?  Not in my book.

After reading the opinion of Katie Wright I get the impression that the pro-vaccination side went on a smear campaign to make anybody who questions the "conventional wisdom" of vaccinations to be suspect.  In the beginning of the CNN story, the question is asked about the motivations of committing fraud in science.  Some people tend to think it's always money, but that's not always true given the kool-aid drinkers of the global warming hoax.  Dr. Wakefield didn't stand to make millions of dollars taking on pharmaceutical companies. The lawyers who saw any potential in class-action lawsuits are too greedy to share that much of a potential purse, but even then, there's no indication that money motivated Dr. Wakefield as the story admits.

One of the most revealing things about this story is that Dr. Wakefield's "study" got published in Lancet.  Lancet is supposed to be a prestigious, peer-reviewed medical journal.  For you lay people out there, let me explain.  If you write a paper that you want published in a respected scientific journal, it first is submitted for the editors and publishers to read.  Then it is sent to several scientists who are considered experts in the particular field of study that the paper deals with.  They are supposed to analyze the paper regarding the data, experimental model, controls used, validity of the variables; i.e. all the details that would reveal whether or not the study had any merit.  Is the importance of that fact starting to gel in your mind?

Now we are told that the paper was "retracted" from Lancet last February.  Really?  This certainly raises questions.  Now we are told that Dr. Wakefield's paper was fraught with errors.  Did his paper not get reviewed before publication?  Who caught all the errors, and why did they catch them and not the editors or other staff at the Lancet?  Why should we think that the Lancet is still a prestigious scientific journal if this kind of stuff can get past them?

Another paragraph quoted from the British Medical Journal says this:
"Meanwhile, the damage to public health continues, fueled by unbalanced media reporting and an ineffective response from government, researchers, journals and the medical profession," BMJ states in an editorial accompanying the work.

Wow, let's take that piece by piece.  First of all; What damage is being done to the public health?  Seriously.  Is there a critical epidemic of Measles and Mumps going on right now that we don't know about?  Or does this mean that the credibility of those who would have us in constant fear of a "pandemic" if we don't rush out and get every vaccination that comes down the road will be in the crapper?  Then there is the problem of "unbalanced media reporting."  No kidding.  You mean that the media should report the facts and let the people decide while trying to stay away from sensationalizing stories?  Pardon me while I laugh.  But the statement doesn't stop there.  The BMJ also claims "an ineffective response from government."  BWAAHHAHAHAHAHAHA!  No, stop, you're killing me!  The Brits have socialized medicine and it is a complete disaster being run by the government, but they should have done something about a flawed paper that made maybe 20% of the population rethink the idea of getting vaccinations.  Then to make sure there is enough blame to go around, they include "researchers, journals and the medical profession."  These people were too incompetent to catch the problem, too incompetent to adequately reveal the problem, and too incompetent to explain the problem and counter with why the public should trust them to take their advice on getting vaccinations.  I went to the Lancet online and discovered that just by reading their abstracts on vaccinations recently, they seem to be nothing but cheerleaders for the process.

Now, I'm supposed to trust them when they tell me that the paper by Dr. Wakefield is not only flawed, but I should trust them when they tell me that vaccines are safe and effective.  The whole CNN story leaves me thinking that until I read the paper by Wakefield and see the data for myself, I shouldn't trust anything that the Lancet or the BMJ has to say.  I'm a "journalist's" worst nightmare.  I actually have critical thinking skills and put them to use when I read a story.  Too bad more people don't do the same.

Once I got through all 17 paragraphs of the CNN story, the only thing I could conclude was that the British Medical Journal wants everyone to believe that Dr. Wakefield committed fraud, even though they didn't present one example or shred of evidence to that effect. They believe that the Lancet, the government, and journalism are all incompetent.  The BMJ thinks that the collective health of the public is in danger due to all of the above factors without any evidence to support it.  Thank you BMJ, you now have all the credibility of Keith Olberman or Saudi Arabia being on the United Nations council for women's rights.

Knowing God: Part 3

I knew when I started this essay, that one of the biggest problems would be avoiding all of the inherent rabbit trails that you can go down by taking on the question of whether or not it is possible to know God.

One commenter who passed by here did exactly what I expected, in light of the fact that the vast majority of people who occupy the churches on Sunday morning across this country don't really believe most of what the Bible says, and don't really have any interest in doing so.  Let me quote my visitor:

I have spent about 15 years now happily looking at evidence that was sent to me by creationists. I'm a Christian, a teacher in my church, and even a part-time missionary! I rarely find evidence sent to me that even takes looking at. [sic] On rare occasions I do, but even that has not stood up to scrutiny.

Gentry's polonium halos is a good argument, though there are refutations [he means criticisms, nobody has refuted any of Dr. Gentry's work. - Moshe] of it written. The question has to do with whether there was any travel of gas through the granite. Gentry says there's no evidence; his opponents say there's clear evidence. I can't resolve a question like that, but I haven't found anything else that withstood scrutiny.

It is interesting that this man cites the polonium halos, because that is the one case that proved to me that people will choose to believe what they WANT to believe in spite of the evidence.  This visitor backs that up, in spades.  Back in the late 80's, when I had just a couple of years of apologetics research under my belt, I was writing a paper for the class I was teaching on apologetics.  I was distilling the very technical writing of Robert Gentry and his critics down to what could be understood by the average person with an eighth grade education.  Most people don't understand chemistry and quantum mechanics, and I wanted people in my class to get the gist of it all.  More importantly, I wanted them to see the silly ways that Gentry's critics tried to deal with explaining away his conclusions.  God had a lesson for me in this exercise. So I will have to explain further.

There was a woman who for months had been coming to a Bible study at an Episcopal church that I was a member of  at that time.  She just showed up after about the second week it had begun.  It was an evening, weekday class and we spent about an hour and a half on it.  The class was memorable for two reasons.  First, the woman seemed to be there for the express reason of playing the devil's advocate.  She wanted to contest everything.  She wanted to introduce every criticism she could come up with.  There were just two of us who would take on her challenges, and often times that meant pointing out how ridiculous some of her challenges were, as they really didn't have anything to do with the particular text we were using.  She was like a member of the Brady Campaign attending a Gun Owners of America meeting.  We tried to be conciliatory and accommodating, but it was a struggle.

The other reason it was memorable was that a couple of months later, I was working on my apologetics class presentation, and I had gone to my college library to pull the source papers on Dr. Gentry's work on polonium halos.  Guess who was the librarian on duty.  She wanted to know what I was looking up and why. I went over it with her as succinctly as I could.  She was not impressed.  I highlighted the important points again and asked her if she understood the implications.  She claimed she didn't.  When I carefully explained that it meant that granite had to have been created nearly instantaneously, she said there must be some explanation.  I showed her how I had already covered that.

"Then there must be some other explanation."
"Do you know of some other physical laws of the universe that the best minds in geophysics are not aware of?" I asked her.
"Well, no, but there must be some other explanation."
"Look, I've made the point that Dr. Gentry has come at this problem from every angle, and that the physicists who don't like his conclusions have postulated theories but with no experimental or empirical evidence.  I've shown you the quote where the head of the geophysical association simply tells his colleagues it would be best to drop the subject because they have no good answers."
"They just haven't found it yet, they just need more time."

And so it hit me.  It didn't matter how much more time.  It didn't matter how much more evidence.  That dialog would prove to be very valuable to me just a couple of weeks later in my sociology class.  The visiting instructor there was an assistant from University of South Florida, where I would attend later.  He was a former Catholic who had a real hate on for the church of his ancestry, and he enjoyed taking shots at Christianity and the Bible at every turn.  But he hadn't bargained for having somebody like me in his class.  I challenged him all the time.

"You make fun of things you claim are "Christian" beliefs and then I show clearly why you are wrong - that those aren't Judeo-Christian beliefs at all -  why do you do that?"
"Because it's all just a bunch of mythology.  Mankind has gotten past that, or needs to."
"But you don't give any good evidence. You cite stuff that I've shown has been debunked.  You make statements, but you don't back them up with anything solid."
"I don't need to."
"Then let me ask you this: If I could show you a mountain of incontrovertible evidence that proves beyond any reasonable doubt that the Bible is a supernatural book that had to be written by an omnipotent, omniscient creator, would you be willing to change your mind?"
"Hell no."

There it was.  The same thing I saw in the librarian.  However, here, I had gotten him to admit it in a classroom full of 28 students.  A guy who was supposed to be teaching truth to young minds about a field that was supposed to be about scientific endeavor.  It was like the scene in "A Few Good Men" where Lt. Caffey gets Col. Jessup to forget about the implications of what he might say, and instead, just blurt out the truth. [BTW - I love the Col. Jessup soliloquy and agree with it.]

It cemented a lesson in my mind that I would never forget.  It brought a more complete understanding to me of what Yeshua meant when He said that we shouldn't throw pearls before swine.  It proved to me that people will not only seek out the answers they want and ignore the ones they don't, but even in the face of seemingly overwhelming evidence, they will choose what they want over what is real.

Now, let me back up to what commenter Paul said above:

"I rarely find evidence sent to me that even takes looking at.[sic] On rare occasions I do, but even that has not stood up to scrutiny."

Admittedly, I don't know what all gets sent to Paul, but his statement smacks of what I've encountered over the many years.  It is the a priori method of dismissing anything one doesn't agree with from the moment something seems to present evidence of the supernatural or contradicts long held assumptions.  Paul is invited to share with me examples of what he deemed unworthy to even consider, but I doubt he'll take me up on it.
When I was teaching apologetics regularly and came across such bad information, I always used it as a teaching opportunity to show my students what not to do.  Also notice that Paul is as much admitting that he doesn't go looking for information that challenges his beliefs, he is waiting for someone to send it to him. There's another lesson there.


I'm a great fan of marine biology. Of material things I miss a lot, my 75 gallon saltwater aquarium is in the top ten.  I used to do a lot of snorkeling, and when I lived in Tampa, I was ten minutes from one of the world's largest marine estuaries.  What does that have to do with the previous paragraph?   There would be no small amount of times when I would see Yankees who had come to Florida, thinking that every piece of shore that was licked by salt water would be a bounty of marine wonders. I can't count the number of times I'd hear "kids" of all ages say, "What's the big deal, there's nothing here."
I'd be out in the turtle grass and mangroves, enjoying the wonders of all the different species of crabs, anemones, a few coral, sea horses, etc. It was different every day.  It could suddenly change with the tide.  The dolphins aren't on the payroll of the Florida Chamber of Commerce, so they don't show up on cue, but they eventually show up. There are many wonders to behold, but if you are expecting someone to lead you by the hand, you will miss out on a lot.  Of course, you can go to the Florida Aquarium, or Sea World, and it's all designed to be spoon fed to you as easy as pie, but the people who go to the trouble and expense of making it so easy and entertaining are making big bucks to do it.


I wish I had a dollar for every time I've heard a believer in evolution make a statement about what creationists believe or teach, only to find out when challenged that they not only cannot cite the source, but that it's what they heard some other evolutionist say they thought creationists believed. Most of the time, it would turn out to be false.  For this reason, creationists are forced to be extremely careful about quoting and citing source material.  Fortunately for us creationists, there are evolutionists who, from time to time, let down their guard and admit things out of some devotion to the scientific method, or truth, as it were.


Here is a good example:
Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist), is a renowned champion of neo-Darwinism, and certainly one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology. He wrote this very revealing comment (the italics were in the original). It illustrates the implicit philosophical bias against Genesis creation—regardless of whether or not the facts support it.

‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.’

Richard Lewontin, Billions and billions of demons, The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997.

You see, it's an open conspiracy, or a cattle conspiracy.  The vast majority of the population outside of academe, don't read the literature and are unfamiliar with all of the internal debate that goes on among scientists.  Guys like Paul aren't going to dig and discover gems like the one above.  It's just generally accepted that "all" scientists believe evolution is fact, based on the evidence, not in spite of it. The assumption is that if someone has an advanced degree in science, then there was some magic fairy dust that was sprinkled on them that makes them follow the truth regardless of the implications or the consequences.


And let's not forget that the reason Ben Stein made the movie EXPELLED: is because the vast majority of the populace is unaware of the systematic and purposeful efforts that go on in academe to stifle any discussion, let alone evidence that is heretical to the religion of evolution.


I want to thank Paul for stopping by and making me realize that I needed to go down this little side track in order to emphasize that if my readers are going to benefit from what I have to share, they are going to actually have to do some thinking for themselves.  And if I need to stop and answer questions and objections, that's fine, even if it means it will take a bit longer to get to the conclusion.  My main point for this entire essay is whether or not it is logical and reasonable to believe that we can know God.  If we have to broaden the knowledge base to get there, so be it.


You can move on to Knowing God: Part 4 by clicking here.

Scientific Scrutiny

For so many years now, I have been fascinated with seeing "discoveries" in the periodicals and then the amazing interpretations of them and how gullible people can be about accepting the conclusions therein.

It is amazing what people will simply accept as fact, when it is nothing but pure speculation or in some cases a "SWAG."  Daddy taught me that phrase.

I came across this recent discovery over at Bayou Renaissance Man.  Seems they found a Roman gladiator in York, England.  Now, you really need to click on that link and go there and look at the pictures.

The problem I have, like so many such things foisted on the public, is the idea that they can tell so much from so little material evidence.  Let me just work this problem like a prosecutor.

So, you don't have any bones from anywhere below the lower spine?  No pelvic girdle? No femurs, no tibula, or fibula, or any assorted foot bones, yet you claim that you can extrapolate from that little evidence how tall the subject was?

Based on only wound marks found on rather old and decaying bone, and the total lack of soft tissue, you can tell us he was a swordsman?    How does this tell us what the man did for a living?  Why does he have to be a gladiator?  What if he was simply a victim of stabbing?  How do you know how muscular he was?  Everybody had to work very hard before the advent of welfare states.

Given that the man was buried and not cremated as is the custom of the Romans, and given the wide range of diverse people who traveled the European area in the time frame you choose for this subject, how do you know what ethnicity the man was?  He could have been Nordic or Irish or Moorish or anything.

How many records are available from living subjects which accurately record their biometric measurements to tell us with some degree of certainty what the average height of a person was at that time? How do we know how homogeneous height was at that time.  History records plenty of discrepancies in biometrics going back thousands of years.   Since Roman practice was to cremate their dead, what evidence do we have to go on, that this information is correct?

Given the frauds of Piltdown man and Nebraska man, and the proven unreliability of radiocarbon dating, how do we know when this body was buried?

The number of questions far outweighs any "known" facts.  Yet you get the impression from the story that they know all about the poor bloke.  This is how people get taken in by hoaxes.  Just say that somebody is an expert and has credentials and whatever they say about a given subject must be right.

It's The Sun, Stupid

Back in about the mid 1980s the crap was starting about CFCs or chlorofluorocarbons destroying the ozone.  In spite of my incredibly boring high school classes, I was fascinated by chemistry and physics and biology, so I had done a lot of self-study in those areas.  At that time I still believed in evolution as well, but that's another story.  The point is, I sought out good sources that really made clear in my mind how these things worked and why they were important. Pretty much the opposite of what went on in the government school, memorizing a lot of abstract facts and formulas long enough to pass a test so you can forget about it the following week or semester.  BTW, it was in my high school years in the late 70s I think, that we were being warned in the papers and magazines about a coming ice age.  I seem to recall a TIME magazine cover to that effect.

Then came that period where I learned to be a mechanic, learning all I could about everything from brakes to engine rebuild, electrical systems and air conditioning. In order to understand and diagnose HVAC systems, you need to understand at least some basics of chemistry and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.  A thorough understanding of the 2nd Law will seriously mess up any belief in evolution, unless you can fool yourself into thinking that the two things can somehow exist in the same universe.  But I digress.  Let me just insert this quote from the British media that I found via BMEWS, and then I'll explain what I'm getting at.

Throughout the 20th century the sun was unusually active, peaking in the 1950s and the late 1980s. Recently sunspot activity has all but disappeared.

Gavin said: “It is the sun’s energy which keeps the earth warm and the amount of energy the earth receives isn’t always the same. I’ve looked at the evidence for global warming and while I understand and agree with a lot of it, there has been a lot missed out. A major factor is the activity of the sun.”

There is also solar wind – streams of particles from the sun – which are at their weakest since records began. In addition, the Sun’s magnetic axis is tilted at an unusual degree. This is not just a scientific curiosity. It could affect everyone on earth and force what for many is unthinkable – a reappraisal of the science behind global warming.

It was thought that carbon dioxide emissions rather than the sun was the bigger effect on climate change. Now a major re-think is taking place.

The upshot is that Gavin is not alone in predicting we face another 30 frozen years, each getting progressively colder than the last.

You can read more about it here.

What first got me questioning the "management by crisis" stuff going on in the world, was that I had learned about earth science in general.  I was working on my private pilot license when I was sixteen, and you have to really learn about weather and navigation.  In navigation you discover that the earth wobbles on its axis. That magnetic North doesn't stay in the same spot from year to year.  You discover that solar activity can play havoc with radio equipment.  You learn all kinds of things that you just won't learn to be a cog in the average labor force.  So when I first heard the nonsense about CFCs destroying the ozone layer, I said, "You have got to be kidding."  First of all, the little ozone layer is but a small part of protecting us from various forms of cosmic radiation.  The magnetic field and water vapor play a much greater role.  Secondly, CFCs are complex and denser molecules that are heavier than air.  In order to successfully find a freon leak in an air conditioning system, you had to keep the sensing probe below any possible slow seeping leaks or you would miss them, so how in the world could CFC be finding it's way up to the upper atmosphere where the ozone is?  I smelled a rat.  Then I find out that the patent that DuPont had on standard R12 and R22 freon was running out.  We must invent a new formula to patent on the premise that "something's gotta be done."   Anybody want to guess who funded studies to show that CFCs are harmful to the environment?  Anyone?  Beuller?

What really irritates me is how many people, and a lot of them with college degrees can be so foolish.  Let's just take this one statement:

“It is the sun’s energy which keeps the earth warm and the amount of energy the earth receives isn’t always the same. I’ve looked at the evidence for global warming and while I understand and agree with a lot of it, there has been a lot missed out.

First question:  What evidence?  Computer models that have failed dramatically?  Mitigating evidence that has purposely been suppressed by East Anglia University and others who have a vested interest in not looking stupid, or worse, deceptive?  Second: You understand and agree with it, and then you say that a lot  -- not a little, not a piece or two -- has been missed out.  Wow.  In the scientific world, I mean the real scientific world as opposed to the one of consensus, where people with Ph.D.s vote on what they want to believe is true, it only takes one piece of evidence to falsify a theory and cause it to be thrown out.  Tell me again WHY I should take anything you say seriously?

I suppose the unwashed masses just need to understand that critical thinking has become as extinct as the dodo bird in the halls of academe.  Thou shalt not question the keepers of the faith in "science."  To do so makes you a, a, **GASP**  "DENIER."  You shall be cast down with the xenophobes, homophobes, racists, bigots, and all manner of subhuman life forms.  "Evidence?  We don't need no stinking evidence!"

Sorry, dude, but it really is the sun.  And because of the fact that we know the sun is shrinking, and because of the laws of physics, and especially the 2nd law of thermodynamics.  It is a lot more likely that we are going to experience more cold.  We should be hoping that solar flares start kicking in again.

Here's a little experiment that you can do at home.  Get yourself a couple of mason jars, quart or half gallon size, with lids.  The bigger the better.  Get a little dry ice; sold at many grocery stores.  You'll need a couple of small non-electronic thermometers, alcohol or mercury type.  In the first one, put in one thermometer and put in the dry ice and put on the lid LOOSELY enough that the sublimating gas can escape as it expands until you don't see any more solid dry ice.  The expanding CO2 should displace most all of the standard air in the jar.  You can then tighten the lid.  In the other jar, put a thermometer and about a teaspoon or tablespoon of water. Screw the lid on tight.  Set both jars out in the sun in the morning.  By about 3:PM local time, check the temperature in the jars.  Then write to me and tell me how much you think that carbon dioxide can contribute to "global warming."

More Funky "Science?"

I don't know where Bayou Renaissance Man gets this stuff, but I'm grateful, er, I think.


I'm grateful because it demonstrates in very shocking and graphic ways the kind of thing I've talked about in other posts regarding logic and reason.  I don't want to copy and paste all of that stuff here, so assuming you've read it now, let me deal with the pertinent parts.

"It is believed the bacteria increases levels of serotonin, reduces anxiety and may also stimulate growth in certain neurons in the brain."

Really?  You believe that because . . . ?  Wow.  There is so much of this kind of nonsense going on in the so-called scientific community these days.  Take a little bit of data and extrapolate to all kinds of bizarre conclusions.  Never mind doing actual controlled experiments, isolating and controlling the variables to determine if your theory is valid or falsifiable.

This is how we get fantastic hoaxes like anthropogenic global warming.  You see, somebody is going to read that, and then when they tell somebody at work or their friends or their family, they are going to leave out the crucial "It is believed . . . " part.  Some will use their God-given common sense to dismiss it until some solid research comes along, but others will just swallow it wholesale and repeat it to others.  The only reason that it won't be pushed through the use of advertising and further press releases is that there is no way to patent dirt and make money off of it.  At least not yet.

Maybe the USDA or the FDA, under the provisions in S 510 will figure out a way to harass the public if they catch anybody letting their kids make mud pies.  


Then there is the second part of BRM's post regarding the Swedish woman:

"After having been administered the enema of her husband's bacteria-free faecal matter, the woman made an rapid recovery and immediately began to regain some of the 27 kilogrammes in weight she had lost over the previous eight months."

Do I deny that the technique worked? No.  Do I understand why it worked? Yes.  But for crying out loud, why do we need to resort to such methods when there are perfectly good, natural nutritional ways of dealing with such a thing?  First you could have had her take copious amounts of spicy food with large amounts of capsaicin to kill the bad bacteria, and then naturally fermented raw cabbage or other such vegetables to restore her own healthy digestive tract.  But no, let's do something uncomfortably invasive that might have resulted in a very bad reaction with her immune system.  And by the way, how do we know that it hasn't happened already?


To be fair, maybe they had tried the food route already and her case was so special or severe that it wasn't producing results fast enough.  Perhaps the heavy antibiotics had so destroyed her good bacteria cultures that there wasn't enough there to regenerate quickly enough.  I just hope that I've learned enough and made enough changes to my own diet to never have to need an enema with somebody else's feces.


Now, go forth and eat better, and try to forget about this story for the rest of the day.