Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Science and Junk Science’ Category

Happy birthday to the world – In the 17th century, Anglican bishop James Ussher published his “Annals of the World”, and it is now available for the first time in English. This 17th century original manuscript has been translated from the original Latin Text, and is now available for the first time ever in softcover and hardcover.

Integrating approx. 15% of biblical history with secular sources, Ussher wrote this incredible literary classic, an accurate reference so highly regarded for its preciseness that the timeline from it was included in the margins of many King James Version Bibles throughout the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries.  He traveled throughout Europe, gathering information from actual historical documents, many of which are no longer available, having been destroyed since the time of his research.

Discover

  • Why Julius Caesar was kidnapped in 75 B.C.
  • Why Alexander the Great burned his ships in 326 B.C.
  • What really happened when the sun ‘went backward’ as a sign to Hezekiah
  • What secular history says about the darkness of the Crucifixion
  • Important literary work that has been inaccessible in book form for over 300 years
  • The Chronology of the World full of colored charts, graphs, timelines and more on CD
  • World history traced from creation through 70 A.D.
  • Over 10,000 footnotes from the original text updated to references from works in the Loeb Classicl Library by Harvard Press
  • Over 2,500 citations from the bible and the Apocrypha
  • Ussher’s original citations that have been checked against the lastest textual scholarship

“The Annals of the World” is a necessary addition to any church library, pastor’s library, or any library, and not surprisingly, is a favorite of home schoolers.  It contains the actual history of the ancient world from the Genesis creation through the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple, and flies in the face of evolutionists’ theory which necessitates billions of years to explain how life sprang from non-life and mutated from one-celled organiisms into human beings.

ANOTHER FASCINATING WORK BY JAMES USSHER

A BODY OF DIVINITY: The Sum and Substance of Christian Religion

A snippet from the section on “Fallen Angels”:

Can the Devil work Miracles, and tell things to come?
No: But God only. Mat. 4. 3 Isa. 41.23.

What Power have they to hurt Man?
They have no more Power than is under Nature, (for above Nature they canot work); and yet they can do nothing by the Power, but what GOD appointeth; not so much as the entering into Hogs. Mat. 8. 31.

How are they effected towards Man?
Very maliciously: As their several Names given them do declare.

What are those Names?
First, Satan, because they mortally hate Men. Secondly, Devil: Because they slanderously accuse them to God and Man, Job 1. 11. & 2. 5. Rev. 12. 10. Thirdly: The Old Serpent: For their subtle Temptation. Fourthly, The Great Dragon: For their destroying of Man. Rev. 12. 9.

How many of them do attend upon every Man?
Sometimes many upon one, and one upon many.

What are the Evil Offices they perform against Man?
Some are common to the Godly with the Wicked; others are proper to the Wicked alone.

Theological areas covered include:

  • Justification.
  • The Commandments.
  • The Priestly office.
  • The Prophetical office.
  • Spiritual warfare.
  • Fasting.
  • Resisting the temptations of the flesh.
  • Baptism.
  • The Lord’s Supper.
  • … and many others, essentially comprising a complete overview of man’s proper relation to God and all things Eternal.

“A Body of Divinity” is a wonderful book to have in a convenient place around the house, and a treasured gift for any believer.

Read Full Post »

Read Full Post »

“Hey, you’re into organic food? Just like Heinrich Himmler! He was as crazy about it as you are! He had this great plan to feed the entire SS on nothing but organic food. Problem was organic food requires about four times as much land to produce as non-organic food and the Nazis just couldn’t grab enough of it. Anyway, not being a Nazi myself I prefer to stick to non-organic food. It’s cheaper, and it means there’s more land to spare to feed the people who need it. You know, Third World people and Untermenschen like that.”

Purchase the best selling book by James Delingpole, 365 Ways to Drive a Liberal Crazy from Amazon.

Read Full Post »

It’s the now easy-to-recognize typical environmental loony leftist strawman again…

Can Ed Darrell find the link?  Maybe he needs to get out of the bathtub first.

The EPA stated,

Toxic air pollutants like mercury from coal- and oil-fired power plants have been shown to cause neurological damage, including lower IQ, in children exposed in the womb and during early development.

This statement is false. There is no such evidence from any credible scientific study.

Read Full Post »

Unbelievable! The San Francisco Chronicle neglected to mention Obama’s SAYING that his policy on ‘clean coal’ technology would make coal not something that would be financially viable to pursue because it will bankrupt whoever attempts it because of government restrictions.

Newsbusters: Hidden Audio: Obama Tells SF Chronicle he will benkrup the coal industry

For some reason that url takes a very long time to load, so I’m going to put up the youtube video and some of the transcript.

Let me sort of describe my overall policy.

What I’ve said is that we would put a cap and trade system in place that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else’s out there.

I was the first to call for a 100% auction on the cap and trade system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants that are being built, that they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted down caps that are being placed, imposed every year.

So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.

That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel and other alternative energy approaches.

The only thing I’ve said with respect to coal, I haven’t been some coal booster. What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as a (sic) ideological matter as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it.

So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can.

It’s just that it will bankrupt them.

NewsBusters’ Tom Blumer found that the San Francisco Chronicle story published on January 18 based upon this January 17 interview did not include any mention of Obama’s willingness to bankrupt the coal industry which you can hear on the audio. You can read the story here when you scroll down to the “In His Own Words” section. Way to cover up for The One, SF Chronicle!

From Newsbusters and —P.J. Gladnick, who is a freelance writer and creator of the DUmmie FUnnies blog.

Read Full Post »

Thomas Sowell has a great piece up on “Change in Politics” -regarding Obama and why the “change” rhetoric is merely repeating the failures of FDR regarding the economy, but points out that at least FDR had the sense to be strong on national security.

Obama doesn’t have FDR’s sense, although he shares the love for social programs.

Obama’s minions have been busy creating obfuscations regarding Sarah Palin, which is a good sign. LGF pointed out the connection to “Fight the Smears” and anti-Palin websites, which seems to indicate that “fightint the smears” involves inventing smears against political opponents. Their hysteria has involved a number of insults to McCain, as well.

Obama doesn’t have any women in his organization, he didn’t chose a woman as veep, but what his campaign has been fighting for was to prevent Hillary Clinton from getting into the Oval office, and now to prevent another woman from having a role in this, -Sarah Palin.–with women’s votes.

The Obamanazis have been searching for a picture of Sarah Palin in a bikini. Why they think that would be disparaging, I don’t know – she was formerly at one time Miss Alaska; a beauty queen. But as see-dubya has pointed out, they tried that same bikini schtick with Michelle Malkin, and it didn’t work.

But they don’t realize that their disgusting ploys rarely work; it just goes to show that they’re bereft of class and civility.

Take a look at this post again and notice how many insults there are in it – without a shred of evidence or fact; it’s complete spin!

Mooseburgers for Everyone to Celebrate Palin, McCain’s VP Pick!
By Tracy DC ☮DC T☮ YesWeDid – Aug 30th, 2008

McCain chooses Sarah Palin for VP spot (after meeting her once) to woo disgruntled Hillraisers, to get financial support from his heretofore unexcited conservative base who was gonna vote for him anyway, as an attempt to reignite his fading image as a maverick, and because he fantasizes what the former beauty queen looks like when the hair comes down and the glasses come off.

That part about the hair coming down and the glasses coming off has been edited out if you go there now. The depiction of conservatives’ being disgusted with McCain up until this point, though, is completely true. But it’s about the only shred of truth in this blog posting at myobama.com

Moreover, I’m sure McCain is trying to figure out if she can be paid less for being a VP than his other strung-along would-be male picks since he’s against equal pay for women. The above must be the reasons since Palin’s experience does not qualify her to potentially be a heartbeat away from being the Leader of the Free World, even more troubling, when you consider whose 72 year old little off beat heart we’re talkin’ about, here.

He’s against equal pay for women – what? Where’s the proof of this? Palin’s experience is similar to that of Obama’s in years, and if you’re going to compare the two and call Palin inexperienced, then you’ll have to admit that Obama is, too. In fact, Obama’s veep choice Joe Biden, demonstrates Obama’s insecurity on the ‘experience’ issue, but also demonstrates that Obama is about politics as usual because Biden has a breathtaking 30 year career in the Senate – having accomplished a number of things during that period which are hardly items to brag about – such as defending the agents that murdered the people at Waco and a young boy, Sam Weaver. and a young mother holding her baby at Ruby Ridge, Vicki Weaver.

All this while completely disregarding Cindy McCain who is very accomplished in her own right, this person depicts McCain as a man who would not treat Palin equally, despite the fact that McCain – not Obama – chose a young woman running mate. Obama was fighting Hillary, and now he’ll be attempting to use women’s votes against Palin. Democrats don’t REALLY believe in ‘equality’ that’s why they have different rules for different groups. And the attack on Palin’s experience reflects this individual’s disconnect from reality, since although Palin’s inexperience is comparable to Obama’s, she has 7 years of executive experience, and being the governor of a state that is flanked by two foreign countries, Canada on the one side and Russia on the other. So she has an awareness of the threat that Russia poses moreso than Biden or Obama, despite Biden’s 30 years of politics as usual. That’s not to mention Biden being a barrel of gaffes. (Recall “you cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin’ Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent.” and “I mean, you got the first mainstream African American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.” )

They’re making points for the other side with this stuff.

To end on a positive note with regard to Palin, you can’t deny her superwoman status–three days after giving birth to her son with Down Syndrome (now 5 months), she was back in the office trying to make sure that polar bears aren’t considered an endangered species, that BIG OIL rules, that incest and rape victims do not have a right to abortion, and that creationism will be taught in school, that is, if one can’t home-school.

No worries about missing dinner for her big family of 7, she’s got that handled too. She’s a moose hunter and has enough frozen microwavable mooseburgers to feed an army stored up for a year! Can’t wait to debate her myself!

quite a bit of stereotyping going on there, heh?

Polar bears are not an endangered species. Palin is not about “big oil” but about energy alternatives. Taking our dependence off of foreign oil is something we should be actively seeking – and of course we won’t see the benefits of doing it for at least 5 years; that’s a given. We should also take proactive measures in order to activate dormant refineries.

How many incest and rape victims are impregnated by rape? She should examine her statistics. And what is wrong with creationism being taught in schools when there is no evidence of evolution in the fossil record, and evolution has never been witnessed? There is certainly more evidence for creation than there is for evolution; what that individual is doing is railing against Christianity as most ‘scientific’ socialists do. The problem is when you look at the science, science backs up the biblical version of how the earth came into being; and is extremely scientific.

I would look forward to Palin debating this moonbat, that post demonstrates how moonbattery involves no rational thought.

As a commenter said in my comments section–at Obama rallies, they’re yelling O-ba-ma! And at McCain rallies, they’re chanting U-S-A! That’s about all you need to know about the two campaigns; one is to coronate a socialist dictator, the other is for service to our country. One is for strangling the taxpayer with blinding taxation, the other is for cutting the pork and special interests and returning us to representative government.

Should that happen, I can see the ancient carreers of people such as Dick Durbin and Joe Biden going by the wayside. I’d like to see a change in the rules for representatives – in that they have limited terms, and would not be allowed to behave as though they’ve been given a lifetime appointment.

Sarah Palin is about REAL CHANGE. She’s fought for it within her own party. She represents all that is good, and is a mother of five children, a lifetime NRA member, hunts and fishes, and loves moose stew.

She is refreshing and as Uncle Jack said in this post, Palin is turning the conservative base who was formerly disgusted by McCain, –around to voting for him.

Read Full Post »

Scientists today try to insist that no true scientist can believe in creation or in the inspiration of the bible. They are wrong, for there are thousands of living scientists who believe in recent creation, who believe in Christ and have accepted him as their personal Savior, and believe in the inerrancy and full authority of the bible. Over a thousand such men have belonged to one particular organization, the Creation Research Society, and there are numerous similar organizations around the world.

Many, and probably most, of the greatest scientists of all times, the founding fathers of science, believed in a personal Creator God, the inspiration of the Bible, and special creation. They professed faith in Christ and the gospel. Whether all were truly ‘born again”, we cannot know, some were unorthodox in their specific doctrinal beliefs, but all were creationists.

A tabulation with the disciplines of the particular discoveries of inventions they made is below. Surely it’s wrong for anyone to think that one cannot be a true scientist and still believe in creation.

Scientific Disciplines Established by Bible-Believing Scientists

Antiseptic surgery, Joseph Lister, 1827-1912.

Bacteriology, Louis Pasteur, 1822-1895.

Calculus, Isaac Newton, 1642-1727.

Celestial Mechanics, Johann Kepler, 1571-1639.

Chemistry, Robert Boyle, 1627-1691.

Comparative Anatomy, George Cuvier, 1769-1832.

Computer Science, Charles Babbage, 1792-1871.

Dimensional Analysis, Lord Rayleigh, 1842-1919.

Dynamics, Isaac Newton, 1642-1727.

Electrodynamics, James Clarm Maxwell, 1831-1879.

Electromagnetics, Michael Faraday, 1791-1867.

Electronics, Ambrose Fleming, 1849-1945.

Energetics, Lord Kelvin, 1824-1907.

Entomologyof Living Insects, Henri Fabre, 1823-1915.

Field Theory, Michael Faraday, 1791-1867.

Fluid Mechanics, George Stokes, 1819-1903.

Galactic Astronomy, William Herschel, 1738-1822.

Gas Dynamics, Robert Boyle, 1627-1691.

Genetics, Gregor Mendel, 1822-1884.

Glacial Geology, Louis Agassiz, 1807-1873.

Gynecology, James Simpson, 1811-1870.

Hydraulics, Leonardo da Vinci, 1452-1519.

Hydrography, Matthew Maury, 1806-1873.

Hydrostatics, Blaise Pascal, 1623-1662.

Ichthyology, Louis Agassiz, 1807-1873.

Isotopic Chemistry, William Ramsay, 1852-1916.

Model Analysis, Lord Rayleigh, 1842-1919.

Natural History, John Ray, 1627-1705.

Non-Euclidean Geometry, Bernhard Riemann, 1826-1866.

Oceanography, Matthew Maury, 1806-1873.

Optical Mineralogy, David Brewster, 1781-1868.

Paleontology, John Woodward, 1665-1728.

Pathology, Rudolph Virchow, 1821-1902.

Physical Astronomy, Johann Kepler, 1571-1630.

Reversible Thermodynamics, James Clark Maxwell, 1831-1879.

Stratigraphy, Nicholas Steno, 1631-1686.

Systemic Biology, Carolus Linnaeus, 1707-1778.

Thermodynamics, Lord Kelvin, 1824-1907.

Thermokinetics, Humphrey Davy, 1778-1829.

Vertebrate Paleontology, Georges Cuvier, 1769-1832.

-The Defender’s Study Bible, Dr. Henry M. Morris, appendix 7, pp. 1518-1529.

Notable Inventions, Discoveries or Developments by Bible-Believing Scientists

Absolute Temperature Scale – Lord Kelvin, 1824-1907.

Actuarial Tables, Charles Babbage, 1792-1871.

Barometer, Blaise Pascal, 1623-1662.

Biogenesis Law, Louis Pasteur, 1822-1895.

Calculating Machine, Charles Babbage, 1792-1872.

Chloroform, James Simpson, 1811-1870.

Classification System, Carolus Linneaus, 1707-1778.

Double Stars, William Herschel, 1738-1822.

Electric Generator, Michael Faraday, 1791-1867.

Electric Motor, Joseph Henry, 1797-1878.

Ephemeris Tables, Johann Kepler, 1571-1630.

Fermentation Control, Louis Pasteur, 1822-1895.

Galvanometer, Joseph Henry, 1797-1878.

Global Star Catalog, John Hsrchel, 1792-1871.

Inert Gases, William Ramsay, 1852-1916.

Kaleidoscope, David Brewster, 1781-1868.

Law of Gravity, Isaac Newton, 1642-1727.

Mine Safety Lamp, Humphrey Davy, 1778-1829.

Pasteurization, Louis Pasteur, 1822-1895.

Reflecting Telescope, Isaac Newton, 1642-1727.

Scientific Method, Francis Bacon, 1561-1626.

Self-Induction, Joseph Henry, 1797-1878.

Telegraph, Ambrose Fleming, 1849-1945.

Tran-Atlantic Cable, Lord Kelvin, 1824-1907.

Vaccination and Immunization, Louis Pasteur, 1822-1895.

This tabulation showing that many of the founding fathers of modern science were men who believed inGod, the Bible and creation, was first published as an ICR “Impact Article” in Acts and Facts, (January, 1982), then in Men of Science, Men of God, by Henry M. Morris (San Diego Master Books, 1982, 1988), 107 pp.

Defenders Bible, pp. 1521-1522, appendix 7.

Read Full Post »

WSJ’s article, “Not so Hot” spells it out.

The latest twist in the global warming saga is the revision in data at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, indicating that the warmest year on record for the U.S. was not 1998, but rather 1934 (by 0.02 of a degree Celsius).

Canadian and amateur climate researcher Stephen McIntyre discovered that NASA made a technical error in standardizing the weather air temperature data post-2000. These temperature mistakes were only for the U.S.; their net effect was to lower the average temperature reading from 2000-2006 by 0.15C.

The new data undermine another frightful talking point from environmentalists, which is that six of the 10 hottest years on record have occurred since 1990. Wrong. NASA now says six of the 10 warmest years were in the 1930s and 1940s, and that was before the bulk of industrial CO2 emissions were released into the atmosphere.

Of course a lot of us have been hip to this for quite some time, but the liberals are still clutching to their faith of the Church of Global Warming with the hopes they can just shove it down our throats. This Hansen fellow is a real piece of work:

James Hansen, NASA’s ubiquitous climate scientist and a man who has charged that the Bush Administration is censoring him on global warming, has been unapologetic about NASA’s screw up. He claims that global warming skeptics — “court jesters,” he calls them — are exploiting this incident to “confuse the public about the status of knowledge of global climate change, thus delaying effective action to mitigate climate change.”

So let’s get this straight: Mr. Hansen’s agency makes a mistake in a way that exaggerates the extent of warming, and this is all part of a conspiracy by “skeptics”? It’s a wonder there aren’t more of them.

Read Full Post »

Alan Caruba:

False Consensus Was Predicted

Indeed, back in November 2004, German climatologist Hans von Storch, director of the GKSS Institute for Coastal Research (IfK) in Geesthacht, Germany, foresaw that claims of alarmist consensus would be made by non-scientists and even some scientists.

Von Storch, who has yet to side with either alarmists or skeptics, warned, “We need to respond openly to the agenda-driven advocates, not only skeptics but also alarmists, who misuse their standing as scientists to pursue their private value-driven agendas.”
Media Echo Scariest Claims

Noting the propensity of large media organizations to echo the alarmists’ claims, von Storch wrote, “Judgments of solid scientific findings are often not made with respect to their immanent quality but on the basis of their alleged or real potential as a weapon by ‘skeptics’ in a struggle for dominance in public and policy discourse.”

Ebell agrees: “If the debate is over, why do they exaggerate so much? It seems that once some scientist makes any sort of speculation about the extent or impact of future warming that sounds even slightly scary, then we never hear the end of it, no matter how many times subsequent research refutes it.

“After reading hundreds of scientific articles and consulting widely on what they mean and how they fit together, I am convinced that if there is a consensus, it is not alarmist,” said Ebell.

Not that we should pay any attention to a German climatologist that doesn’t belong to the Church of Global Warming, LOL

Also, Sphere is not showing that I linked to this article, so I’m going to link numerous times to this WSJ article…

Read Full Post »

This is interesting, passed on to me by Rotty through email, since he knows I always enjoy a good row.

The standoff beings with begins with the Devil’s Kitchen, pointing to a post by Tom Nelson at Climate Resistance who took on the quest for the holy grail; the qualifications of the IPCC “climate experts” whose “science” we aren’t allowed to question. This, because the “debate is over” and the “science is settled”, despite the 400 dissenters that showed up in Bali. The truth of the matter is, The Church of Global Warming doesn’t want to hear any other opinions, which is not science. Science is supposed to be open to honest testing of a hypothesis. The only why you get a real answer is if you’re open to finding out what the truth is. This isn’t the case in terms of the global warming freaks.

So we downloaded IPCC WGII’s latest report on “Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability”. There were 380 contributors to the report [PDF of contributors].

*snip*

..so we focused on the contributors who operate in the UK. Of the 51 UK contributors to the report, there were 5 economists, 3 epidemiologists, 5 who were either zoologists, entomologists, or biologists. 5 worked in civil engineering or risk management / insurance. 7 had specialisms in physical geography (we gave the benefit of the doubt to some academics whose profiles weren’t clear about whether they are physical or human geographers). And just 10 have specialisms in geophysics, climate science or modelling, or hydrology. But there were 15 who could only be described as social scientists. If we take the view that economics is a social science, that makes 20 social scientists. This gives the lie to Dessler’s claim that IPCC contributors are analogous to medical doctors.

Emphasis mine. HA! Just as in the case of Rachel Carson, the marine biologist, we’re supposed to ignore the real data for the purpose of kneeling at the environmental alter and sacrifice blood and treasure on the basis of lies. This also gives the lie to “climatologists'” claims in general about warming, that we’re not supposed to question the holy writ that comes from the IPCC panel, because they’re the ‘experts’.

We were surprised by the results. Was the prevalence of social scientists from the UK representative of the whole group? We decided to repeat the test for the contributors based in the USA.

Of the 70 US contributors, there were 7 economists, 13 social scientists, 3 epidemiologists, 10 biologists/ecologists, 5 engineers, 2 modellers/statisticians, 1 full-time activist (and 1 part time), 5 were in public health and policy, and 4 were unknowns. 17 worked in earth/atmospheric sciences. Again, we gave the benefit of the doubt to geographers where it wasn’t clear whether their specialism was physical, or human geography.

1 full-time activist and 1 part-time! This blows my mind and is an outrage! I’m certain that the same results would be achieved by going down the entire list, no matter where they’re originally from. This is propaganda masquerading as science!

In a follow-up post, Dessler has set about ‘Busting the ‘consensus busters” by ridiculing the qualifications of Inhofe’s 400 experts, starting with a certain Thomas Ring. In the comments section he justifies this approach:

I agree it would be quicker to simply note the qualified skeptics on the list (there are probably a few dozen), but, from a rhetorical point of view, I think pointing out these immensely unqualified members of the list is more effective.

Ring’s credentials include a degree from Case Western Reserve University in chemical engineering, still more impressive than the ones the IPCC panel has trotted out. This is even MORE amusing:

Well, we can all play that game… Included as contributors to WGII are Patricia Craig, Judith Cranage, Susan Mann, and Christopher Pfeiffer, all from Pennsylvania State University. It’s not that these people aren’t experts in their field – they probably are. Our problem with their inclusion on the list of Contributors to the IPCC WGII Fourth Assessment report is that their jobs are (in order) website-designer, administrative assistant (x2), and network administrator.

YIKES!

Also on the list is Peter Neofotis who appears to be a 2003 graduate of Ecology, Evolution, and Environmental Biology from Columbia. Are there many experts in anything who graduated in 2003? Would Dessler take his sick child to a doctor, who, according to our understanding of medical training, would have not yet qualified? Also at Columbia is Marta Vicarelli, who is a PhD candidate in ‘sustainable development’. Can she be the amongst the world’s leading experts on sustainability? It seems hard to take the claim seriously. Or what about Gianna Palmer at Wesleyan University, who, as far as we can tell, will not graduate from university until 2010?

Dessler has inadvertently thrown a light on what the real problem is with the agenda-driven IPCC ‘climate’ reports.

And yet Dessler insists that

Inhofe’s list is chock full of people without any recent, relevant research on the problem. In fact, I’m pretty sure that’s why they’re skeptics: people with the relevant experience are immediately persuaded by the evidence. This should be compared to the IPCC, which includes exclusively people with recent, relevant expertise on the problem.

There are, in fact, only about 7,000 climatologists in total, because climate was a stalled profession involving many different disciplines, and climate was considered to be something in constant flux. But still, those that are in Inhofe’s list are at least engineers, instead of administrative assistants, activists, web designers and students who aren’t destined to graduate until 2010, and so on.

Anything which can be thrown at the sceptics can be thrown at IPCC contributors.

That is not to say that social scientists and computer programmers have nothing to offer the world, or the IPCC process. They are crucial in fact. What it is to say, however, is that, when social scientists, computer programmers and administrative assistants comprise a significant proportion of IPCC contributors, the global warmer mantra that the IPCC represents the world’s top 2500 climate scientists is just plain old-fashioned not true.

It’s just a plain old-fashioned LIE, but it’s typical of the pipedreams of leftist environmentalists. Inhofe’s list is comprised of these notable characters:

Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

Dr. Tad Murty, former senior research scientist, Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans, former director of Australia’s National Tidal Facility and professor of earth sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide; currently adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

Dr. R. Timothy Patterson, professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University, Ottawa

Dr. Fred Michel, director, Institute of Environmental Science and associate professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Carleton University, Ottawa

Dr. Madhav Khandekar, former research scientist, Environment Canada. Member of editorial board of Climate Research and Natural Hazards

Dr. Paul Copper, FRSC, professor emeritus, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ont.

Dr. Ross McKitrick, associate professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph, Ont.

Dr. Tim Ball, former professor of climatology, University of Winnipeg; environmental consultant

Dr. Andreas Prokoph, adjunct professor of earth sciences, University of Ottawa; consultant in statistics and geology

Mr. David Nowell, M.Sc. (Meteorology), fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, Canadian member and past chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa

Dr. Christopher Essex, professor of applied mathematics and associate director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.

Dr. Gordon E. Swaters, professor of applied mathematics, Dept. of Mathematical Sciences, and member, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Research Group, University of Alberta

Dr. L. Graham Smith, associate professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.

Dr. G. Cornelis van Kooten, professor and Canada Research Chair in environmental studies and climate change, Dept. of Economics, University of Victoria

Dr. Petr Chylek, adjunct professor, Dept. of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax

Dr./Cdr. M. R. Morgan, FRMS, climate consultant, former meteorology advisor to the World Meteorological Organization. Previously research scientist in climatology at University of Exeter, U.K.

Dr. Keith D. Hage, climate consultant and professor emeritus of Meteorology, University of Alberta

Dr. David E. Wojick, P.Eng., energy consultant, Star Tannery, Va., and Sioux Lookout, Ont.

Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, Surrey, B.C.

Dr. Douglas Leahey, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary

Paavo Siitam, M.Sc., agronomist, chemist, Cobourg, Ont.

Dr. Chris de Freitas, climate scientist, associate professor, The University of Auckland, N.Z.

Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Dr. Freeman J. Dyson, emeritus professor of physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J.

Mr. George Taylor, Dept. of Meteorology, Oregon State University; Oregon State climatologist; past president, American Association of State Climatologists

Dr. Ian Plimer, professor of geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide; emeritus professor of earth sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia

Dr. R.M. Carter, professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia

Mr. William Kininmonth, Australasian Climate Research, former Head National Climate Centre, Australian Bureau of Meteorology; former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology, Scientific and Technical Review

Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute

Dr. Gerrit J. van der Lingen, geologist/paleoclimatologist, Climate Change Consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand

Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, professor of environmental sciences, University of Virginia

Dr. Nils-Axel Morner, emeritus professor of paleogeophysics & geodynamics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden

Dr. Gary D. Sharp, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, Calif.

Dr. Roy W. Spencer, principal research scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville

Dr. Al Pekarek, associate professor of geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud, Minn.

Dr. Marcel Leroux, professor emeritus of climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS

Dr. Paul Reiter, professor, Institut Pasteur, Unit of Insects and Infectious Diseases, Paris, France. Expert reviewer, IPCC Working group II, chapter 8 (human health)

Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, physicist and chairman, Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland

Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, reader, Dept. of Geography, University of Hull, U.K.; editor, Energy & Environment

Dr. Hans H.J. Labohm, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations) and an economist who has focused on climate change

Dr. Lee C. Gerhard, senior scientist emeritus, University of Kansas, past director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey

Dr. Asmunn Moene, past head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway

Dr. August H. Auer, past professor of atmospheric science, University of Wyoming; previously chief meteorologist, Meteorological Service (MetService) of New Zealand

Dr. Vincent Gray, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of ‘Climate Change 2001,’ Wellington, N.Z.

Dr. Howard Hayden, emeritus professor of physics, University of Connecticut

Dr Benny Peiser, professor of social anthropology, Faculty of Science, Liverpool John Moores University, U.K.

Dr. Jack Barrett, chemist and spectroscopist, formerly with Imperial College London, U.K.

Dr. William J.R. Alexander, professor emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa. Member, United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000

Dr. S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences, University of Virginia; former director, U.S. Weather Satellite Service

Dr. Harry N.A. Priem, emeritus professor of planetary geology and isotope geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences; past president of the Royal Netherlands Geological & Mining Society

Dr. Robert H. Essenhigh, E.G. Bailey professor of energy conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University

Dr. Sallie Baliunas, astrophysicist and climate researcher, Boston, Mass.

Douglas Hoyt, senior scientist at Raytheon (retired) and co-author of the book The Role of the Sun in Climate Change; previously with NCAR, NOAA, and the World Radiation Center, Davos, Switzerland

Dipl.-Ing. Peter Dietze, independent energy advisor and scientific climate and carbon modeller, official IPCC reviewer, Bavaria, Germany

Dr. Boris Winterhalter, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland

Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden

Dr. Hugh W. Ellsaesser, physicist/meteorologist, previously with the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Calif.; atmospheric consultant.

Dr. Art Robinson, founder, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, Cave Junction, Ore.

Dr. Arthur Rorsch, emeritus professor of molecular genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands; past board member, Netherlands organization for applied research (TNO) in environmental, food and public health

Dr. Alister McFarquhar, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.; international economist

Dr. Richard S. Courtney, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.

Ignoring these people, who are not students destined to graduated in 2010, and whose expertise in the area of science could definitely be greater than that of an administrative assistant, web designer and activists–Dessler concentrated on Thomas Ring, a chemical engineer by training. As if that is an example of someone who’s not ‘qualified’ in comparison with the IPCC nuts behind their exaggerated fictional reports!

DK at the Devil’s Kitchen concludes:

The IPCC are liars and as the whole anthropogenic climate change crap unravels—even on the Left—they cling ever more desperately to their outdated theories by propagating yet more obfuscations, half-truths and outright lies.

Wake up, people!—we are being lied to, and it is so that the political establishment can make complete slaves of us all.

Also see this article at the Wall Street Journal entitled “Not So Hot”.

Read Full Post »

There is no evidence whatsoever that evolution is true. Nobody has ever observed a star evolve from hydrogen, life evolve from chemicals, a higher species evolve from a lower species, a man from an ape, or anything like that; nor have they been able to create any of that in a laboratory. No one ever observed evolution in action, no one knows how it works, or even how it might work, even if it were true. Nobody has ever seen it happen, despite thousands of experiments that have tried to produce it, and nobody has come up with a workable explanation to explain it.

It has been falsified at least as far as today’s world goes. This does not prove it happened in the past, but evolutionists should at least recognize that evolution is not science, because it is not observable. Evolution must be accepted on faith.

There is no evidence that evolution took place in the past. As we’ve seen through Haeckel’s fraudulent embryo drawings, the tree of life, vestigial organs, etc., there is no evidence from biology, the fossil record, taxonomy or genetics that evolution is true or ever has been. Nobody has ever recorded evolution in any kind of creature into a more complex kind of creature, so the blind faith that requires someone to believe that an organism as complex as the human body could jump out of the primordial soup by accident must be tremendous.

All known vertical changes go in the wrong direction. An average of at least one species has become extinct every day since records have been kept, but no new species have evolved. Stars explode, comets and meteorites disintegrate, the biosphere deteriorates, and everything dies, so far as historical observations go, but nothing is evolving into greater complexity.

Prehistoric changes in the sedimentary rocks of the earth’s crust, where billions of fossils of former living creatures were preserved we can clearly observe, show extinction, not evolution. Numerous kinds of extinct animals are found, like dinosaurs, for example, but never in all of these billions of fossils, is there a transitional form. No fossil has ever been found with half scales and half feathers, half legs and half wings or a half-developed heart, half-developed eyes, or any other such indicator.

If evolution is true, there would be millions of transitional types among these multiplied billions of fossils – in fact, EVERYTHING should show transitional features. If one were to rely strictly upon observed evidence, past evolution is false.

Evolution is imaginary and not even part of the real world, which leaves creation as the necessary explanation.

And there is a lot more evidence in genetics, biology, the fossil record, taxonomy and so on, for creation.

This is confirmed in quantity by the law of decay, the law of conservation in quality, and the first and second laws of thermodynamics.

The first law says, in all real processes, the total quantity of matter and/or energy stays constant, even though it changes in form. A parallel principle in biology notes that ‘like begets like’. Dogs are dogs, donkeys are donkeys, wolves are wolves, although they can appear in many varieties. The Second law notes that the quality of any system-the usefulness, its complexity, its information value-tends to decrease. In living organism, true vertical changes go down-not up. Mutations cause deterioration and a loss in genetic code, individuals die, species become extinct. In fact, everyhting in the universe is headed downward toward cosmic death.

The First Law states in effect that nothing is being created or evolving. The Second law notes that there is, instead, a universal tendency for everything to disintegrate down, and finally to “die”. The whole universe is growing old, wearing out, headed toward stillness and death. This universal “increase in entropy” leads directly to the conclusion that there must have been a creation of things in the past; otherwise everything would now be dead, since they’re universally dying right now.

It is logical, therefore, to believe in a primal creation by past supernatural processes because we cannot deduce anything about it except that it happened. The process of creation, the duration, the order of events, -are hidden by virtue of the fact that our present world processes do not create, they only conserve in quantity and deteriorate in quality.

Read Full Post »

Thursday, December 27, 2007
By Steven Milloy

“I’ve made up my mind. Don’t confuse me with the facts.”

That saying most appropriately sums up the year in climate science for the fanatic global warming crowd.

As Al Gore, the United Nations, grandstanding politicians and celebrities, taxpayer-dependent climate researchers, socialist-minded Greens, climate profiteers and other members of the alarmist railroad relentlessly continued their drive for greenhouse gas regulation in 2007, the year’s scientific developments actually pointed in the opposite direction. Here’s the round-up:

1. Cracked crystal balls. Observed temperature changes measured over the last 30 years don’t match well with temperatures predicted by the mathematical climate models relied on by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), researchers reported.

The models predict significantly warmer atmospheric temperatures than actually occurred, despite the availability of more and better quality data and improved modeling efforts since the late-1970s.

“We suggest, therefore, that projections of future climate based on these models be viewed with much caution,” the researchers concluded. Read more

2. The big yellow ball in the sky. The Sun may have contributed 50 percent or more of the global warming thought to have occurred since 1900, according to a new historical temperature reconstruction showing more variation in pre-industrial temperatures than previously thought.

The researchers found that “the climate is very sensitive to solar changes and a significant fraction of the global warming that occurred during the last century should be solar induced.” Read more

3. Pre-SUV warming. Another new temperature reconstruction for the past 2,000 years indicates that globally averaged temperature 1,000 years ago was about 0.3 degrees Celsius warmer than the current temperature. Since that climatic “heat wave” obviously wasn’t caused by coal-fired power plants and SUVs, the current temperature is quite within natural variability, deflating alarmists’ rash conclusions about the warming of the past 50 years. Read more

4. A disciplined climate. Runaway global warming — the alarmist fantasy in which a warmer global temperature causes climatic events that, in turn, cause more warming and so-on in a never-ending positive feedback loop — was cornered by new data from researchers at the University of Alabama-Huntsville (UAH). The new research sheds light on the mechanism by which the atmosphere self-regulates. Read more

5. A gnarly wipeout. Climate alarmists gleefully surfed a 2005 study that claimed greenhouse gas emissions would slow Atlantic Ocean circulation and cause a mini ice age in Europe. But an international team of researchers reported that the intensity of the Atlantic circulation may vary by as much as a factor of eight in a single year. The decrease in Atlantic circulation claimed in the 2005study falls well within this variation and so is likely part of a natural yearly trend, according to the new study. Read more

6. A pollution solution. A new study reported that the solid particles suspended in the atmosphere (called “aerosols”) that make up “brown clouds” may actually contribute to warmer temperatures — precisely the opposite effect heretofore claimed by global warming alarmists.

“These findings might seem to contradict the general notion of aerosol particles as cooling agents in the global climate system …,” concluded the researchers. Read more

7. Lazy temperature? Researchers reported that the rate of manmade carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions was three times greater during 2000 to 2004 than during the 1990s. Since increasing atmospheric C02 levels allegedly cause global warming, the new study must mean that global temperatures are soaring even faster now than they did during the 1990s, right?

Wrong. According to the most recent data from the U.S. Department of Commerce’s National Climatic Data Center, ever-changing global temperatures are in no way keeping pace with ever-increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Read more

8. Don’t plant that tree! Researchers reported that while tropical forests exert a cooling influence on global climate, forests in northern regions exert a significant warming influence on climate. Based on the researchers’ computer modeling, forests above 20 degrees latitude in the Northern Hemisphere — that is, north of the line of latitude running through Southern Mexico, Saharan Africa, central India and the southernmost Chinese Island of Hainan — will warm surface temperatures in those regions by an estimated 10 degrees Fahrenheit by the year 2100. Read more

9. The Tropical Arctic. Dutch researchers reported that during a period of intense global warming 55 million years ago — when the Arctic Ocean was as warm as 73 degrees Fahrenheit — there was a tremendous release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. But which came first, the warming or the greenhouse gases?

It was the warming, according to the researchers. Read more

10. Much ado about nothing. In a report to Congress, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency revealed greenhouse gas regulation to be quite the fool’s errand. In estimating the atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases 90 years from now under both a scenario where no action is taken to reduce manmade emissions and a scenario where maximum regulation is implemented, the estimated difference in average global temperature between the two scenarios is 0.17 degrees Centigrade.

For reference purposes, the estimated total increase in average global temperature for the 20th century was about 0.50 degrees Celsius.

That’s what researchers have reported this year. And let’s not forget the spanking a British high judge gave Al Gore’s movie for all its scientific inaccuracies and the thrashing non-alarmist climate scientists gave to alarmist climate scientists in a debate sponsored by the New York debating society Intelligence Squared.

Al Gore and the alarmist mob claim the debate about the science of global warming is “over.” Given the developments of 2007, it’s easy to see why they would want it that way.

Read Full Post »

185.jpg

Darwinism Refuted dot com

For 40 years, Piltdown man was accepted as the greatest evidence for human evolution. Evolutionist fossil experts claimed to have found a lot of transitional features in the skull. It only emerged later that the fossil was a fake.

In the detailed analysis completed by Joseph Weiner, this forgery was revealed to the public in 1953. The skull belonged to a 500-year-old man, and the jaw bone belonged to a recently deceased ape!

Apparently it was the jawbone of an orangutan.

The teeth had been specially arranged in a particular way and added to the jaw, and the molar surfaces were filed in order to resemble those of a man. Then all these pieces were stained with potassium dichromate to give them an old appearance. These stains began to disappear when dipped in acid. Sir Wilfred Le Gros Clark, who was in the team that uncovered the forgery, could not hide his astonishment at this situation, and said: “The evidences of artificial abrasion immediately sprang to the eye. Indeed so obvious did they seem it may well be asked-how was it that they had escaped notice before?”

Stephen Jay Gould, “Smith Woodward’s Folly,” New Scientist, 5 April 1979, p. 44.

Museum of the Hoaxes

Type: Hoax.
Summary: Early twentieth-century paleontologists discovered in a pit in Southern England what they claimed to be the missing link between man and ape.

Read Full Post »

257.jpg

Darwinism Refuted dot com

In the September 5, 1997, edition of the well-known scientific journal Science, an article was published revealing that Haeckel’s embryo drawings were the product of a deception. The article, called “Haeckel’s Embryos: Fraud Rediscovered,” had this to say:

The impression they [Haeckel’s drawings] give, that the embryos are exactly alike, is wrong, says Michael Richardson, an embryologist at St. George’s Hospital Medical School in London… So he and his colleagues did their own comparative study, reexamining and photographing embryos roughly matched by species and age with those Haeckel drew. Lo and behold, the embryos “often looked surprisingly different,” Richardson reports in the August issue of Anatomy and Embryology.

Elizabeth Pennisi, “Haeckel’s Embryos: Fraud Rediscovered,” Science, 5 September, 1997.

257a.jpg

In its September 5, 1997, issue, the famous journal Science published an article revealing that Haeckel’s embryo drawings had been falsified. The article described how the embryos were in fact very different from one another.

Observations in recent years have revealed that embryos of different species do not resemble each other, as Haeckel had attempted to show. The great differences between the mammal, reptile and bat embryos above are a clear instance of this.

Cao’s note: Nobody should be surprised about this, although we can start laughing out loud now about the blind faith in the evolutionist religion shown by the man at Millard Fillmore’s bathtub.

Read Full Post »

Rachel Carson and her Darwinian followers retrace the footsteps of Trofim Lysenko’s biologists. Erlich, Wurster, there is a collection of them. You might remember Erlich’s apocalyptic scare tactics about the population explosion:

“The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s the world will undergo famines-hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked on now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate.”

He was wrong. Why should we believe any of them? They CONTINUE to be WRONG; it’s their pattern, based on their ideology. Real science and Evolutionist Darwinian Socialism do not go together; we saw this with the results of Hitler’s experiments, attempting to create the Master Race (Lebensborn): what they got was ordinary people.

Lysenko was a mediocre researcher, and so appears to be Rachel Carson. She wasn’t a practicing research scientist, but she devotes long chapters to the discussion of genetics in Silent Spring, with explanations of functions of life at the cellular level, and theories about the causes of cancer. From a scientist’s point of view, she commits a number of faux pas’s. She misuses the word “mutagen”, mis-cites the writings of medical authorities, and gives credence to cancer theories which are highly speculative or were already discarded. She describes chemicals in general as the

“sinister and little-recognized partners of radiation in changing the very nature of the world-the very nature of its life.” (Carson 1962, p. 16).

Very dramatic, but chemicals are also life-saving, which she neglects to make mention of, particularly in the case of DDT. So-the questionable scientific generalizations should be put to rest, as should the romantic notion of nature as being benign and fragile.

Carson’s view on mosquito ‘resistance’ to DDT and Darwin’s ’survival of the fittest’ is very similar to the Lysenko biologists’ view. The “resistance” of mosquitoes to DDT argument is based on the idea that chemicals eliminate the weaker members of the pest population, and that survivors would be the ones best able to recover from attack. She claimed these mutations would be hardier, and that combating them would lead to a process of escalation in which ever more toxic chemicals would be necessary to combat them. Given her view of stronger and stronger pest specimens evolving after chemical control, she predicted an endless vicious circle.

Happily, in the real world, resistance is not an expression of the selection of the strongest specimens in a population, nor do mutations produce stronger or more complex individuals. As the compound kills all individuals that do not possess the resistant trait, those which live give rise to a new population that consists only of resistant individuals. It’s untrue that the resistant strains represent a “superbug”; they are weaker than the population which has been eliminated. No mutations produce stronger individuals; this is also true in human biology.

Dr. Lee Spetner, who taught information theory for a decade at Johns Hopkins University, and the Weizman Institute, spent years studying mutations. In his book, “Not by Chance, Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution”, he writes,

In all the reading I’ve done in the life-sciences literature, I’ve never found a mutation that added information…All point mutations that have been studied in the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not increase it.

Mutations delete information from the genetic code. They never create more complex information. What are they actually observed to cause in human beings? Death. Sterility. Hemophilia. Sickle Cell Anemia. Cystic Fybrosis. Down’s Syndrome. Over 4,000 diseases. The genetic code is designed to run an organism perfectly–mutations delete information from the code, causing birth defects.

This is quite a problem for the Rachel Carson worshippers. No ’superbug’ is created when mosquitos populations mutate to adapt to the effects of DDT.

Another hypothesis is that resistance to DDT was already in the hereditary strings of DNA of certain mosquitoes and it isn’t a mutation phenomenon at all.

Carson, like Lysenko’s biologists, has a strong consistency in her thought processes and even in how “Silent Spring” is being treated like some kind of holy writ. The facts she presents are just as reliable as those presented by Lysenko’s biologists. Lynseko thought they could condition cows to produced 50 liters of milk a day. They also planted wheat in a field that would normally produce rye, with the idea that it would magically produce rye just because the field normally produced rye. As evidence, they planted a field that was normally planted with rye, with wheat. And they held up their results which contained some rye, as the definitive proof that wheat was turning into rye. Forget the simple common-sense approach which would have a normal person deduce that a field formerly planted with rye would sprout rye because there would be some rye seeds left from the last crop. Common sense doesn’t seem to bother leftist environmentalists, neither did it bother Lynseko. And it worked until the Soviets realized what he was saying wasn’t realistic in the real world, so eventually they discarded his work.

It is no wonder that today Lysenko’s science has been abandoned and is considered fraudulent!

Lysenkoist biologists were firmly planted in the world of Stalinist Marxism. Both Marx and Stalin praised Darwin, and they did all they could do to separate themselves from the traditions of Western biology, just as the modern-day environmentalists are attempting to do.

Luboš Motl

Both communism and Nazism were trying to influence natural sciences but I would say that the actual impact was much weaker than the impact of environmentalism on climate science or the impact of feminism on biology. The environmentalists are eager to suppress any research of the actual natural mechanisms driving the climate while feminism and other egalitarian ideologies are eager to suppress the research of all parts of biology that unmasks differences between various groups of people. Nazi and communist leaders of science were biased but I am afraid that they were not *that* biased.

Carson was a feminist marine biologist. Certainly her environmentalist following (including the global warming enthusiasts) seems to be Marxist in their ideological leanings, including the methodology they use for ‘debate’, which follows Motl’s bullet points and those who opposed Lysenko’s ‘creative biology’.

But also, Wurster’s “science” seems to back the contention that Rachel Carson’s worshippers following a Soviet-era Lysenko biology roadmap in achieving their scientific test results; stack the deck in your favor and back the conclusions into the experiments instead of testing for a hypothesis and modifying the hypothesis when the test results do not prove the original hypothesis.

Here is a comparison chart showing the different figures Wurster gives his audience in a very carefully crafted screed. The table compares Wurster’s theoretical values, the values he mentions in the 1970 oral presentation entitled “DDT and the Environment”, delivered at the Yale School of Forestry’s symposium series “Issues in the Environmental Crisis”, and correlative data drawn from the 1967 publication DDT Residues in an East Coast Estuary: A Case of Biological Concentration of a Persistent Insecticide, that he produced with Isaacson and Woodwell.

Comparison of Residue Levels in Marine Organisms
All values expressed in ppb

Trophic levels, organisms Wurster, 1970: proposed calculated magnifications Wurster, 1970 stated values Woodwell, etal., 1967: published data
1. Algae .025-.5 88
2. zooplankton 5 5 40
3a. Shrimp 20 20 .160
3b. Small fish 25-50 250-1,000 230-940
4a. Small bird 250-500 3,000-5,000 1,480-9,600
4b. Large fish 125-500 1,000-2,000 1,480-9,600
5a. Large bird 1,250-5,000 20,000-30,000 22,800-26,400
4c. Squid 125-500
5b. Bermuda petrel 1,250-5000 6,400 (in eggs and dead chicks)

The differences between his stated values and the data published in 1967 are breathtaking, particularly at the lower trophic levels. In the lecture, Wurster tells his audience that zooplankton contain 5 ppb, and shrimp, one level up in the food chain, 20 ppb. In 1967, on the other hand, these levels were eight times higher: 40 and 160 ppb respectively. Woodwell was never informed about Wurster’s adjustments in a downward direction from the residues they reported in 1967.

The first “case” Wurster discusses deals with the phenomenon of biological magnification through the foodchain. His material almost exclusively comes from research he performed together with George Woodwell and Peter Isaacson in DDT residues in a Long Island marsh (Woodwell et al, 1967):

“We ran something in excess of 200 analyses in the summer of 1966 on soils, grasses and many kinds of organisms. The marsh averaged about a pound of DDt per acre. In the whole group of analyses there was but a single zero-only one analysis in which we could detect no trace of DDT. It was a sample of mud from forty centimeters under the surface of the marsh.”

This statement-that the marsh contained an average of about one pound per acre of residues proved to be an embarrassing point to George Woodwell, the first author of the 1967 publication on the marsh, since in the original paper they wrote: “DDT residues in the soil of an extensive salt marsh on the south shore of Long Island average more than 13 pounds per acre (15 kilograms per hectare)”(Woodwell et al., 1967, p. 821.)

When confronted during the consolidated DDT hearings with this, Woodwell said, “That is a true statement in my experience. I didn’t know that Dr. Wurster had said that, but that is true…(p. 7236)…it is also true that this sampling (referring to the original data reported for the marsh) is deliberately biased in order to find the highest residues we could find. (Woodwell, 1972, p. 7235.)

And what purpose does a ’swamp’ serve, anyway? It is a natural area of cleaning the environment. A swamp or marsh collects impurities. It is for this reason that eco-engineers create man-made marshes in some areas. So this was a good place to go if one was intentionally looking for DDT concentrations above the norm.

“We estimated that in our own marsh the water contained fifty parts per trillion of DDT. Two steps up the food chain the zooplankton contained a hundred times more DDt than the water, while shrimp feeding on zooplankton were four times higher in DDT content than were the zooplankton. Smaller fish, such as minnows and silversides carried about one-fourth to one part per million (ppm) of DDT – concentrations five to ten times higher than the zooplankton on which they were presumably feeding. The large fish, among them pickerel and needlefish, have one or two ppm of DDT – again five or ten times higher than the small fish. Birds such as terns contain from three to ten ppm of DDT, about ten times higher than the small fish on which they feed. Finally, at the top of the particular food web, we see the large-diving ducks, such as mergansers and cormorants, which contain from twenty to thirty ppm of DDT, about ten times higher than the larger fish they eat.” (Wurster, 1970, p. 42, 43.)

But unfortunately there are also discrepancies within this second paragraph, between the math in the calculated values he suggests and the “actual” residue values he refers to. He says that five to ten times more residues occur in small fish feeding on zooplankton than within the zooplankton. He then states that “this is one-fourth to one part per million of DDT.” He has already told us that the zooplankton contain about 5 ppb (100 times the 50 ppt level in the water). Five to ten times 5 ppb would be 25-50 ppb, instead of the stated 250-1,000 ppb (the same as 1/4 to 1 ppm). These differences between the proposed magnification calculations and values he claims are typical for each trophic level can be found throughout his whole food-chain summary.

Can anybody say “Junk Science”?

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »