I am ending my subscription to National Geographic this year because of the magazine’s insistence on shoving global warming down my throat.

Today’s article about global cooling by National Geographic Online caught my attention:

A prolonged lull in solar activity has astrophysicists glued to their telescopes waiting to see what the sun will do next—and how Earth’s climate might respond.

The sun is the least active it’s been in decades and the dimmest in a hundred years. The lull is causing some scientists to recall the Little Ice Age, an unusual cold spell in Europe and North America, which lasted from about 1300 to 1850.

The coldest period of the Little Ice Age, between 1645 and 1715, has been linked to a deep dip in solar storms known as the Maunder Minimum.

During that time, access to Greenland was largely cut off by ice, and canals in Holland routinely froze solid. Glaciers in the Alps engulfed whole villages, and sea ice increased so much that no open water flowed around Iceland in the year 1695.

To summarize, the first part of this article explains how the Little Ice Age corresponds to a lack of solar activity. Then this:

But researchers are on guard against their concerns about a new cold snap being misinterpreted.

“[Global warming] skeptics tend to leap forward,” said Mike Lockwood, a solar terrestrial physicist at the University of Southampton in the U.K. []

He and other researchers are therefore engaged in what they call “preemptive denial” of a solar minimum leading to global cooling.

Even if the current solar lull is the beginning of a prolonged quiet, the scientists say, the star’s effects on climate will pale in contrast with the influence of human-made greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2).

“I think you have to bear in mind that the CO2 is a good 50 to 60 percent higher than normal, whereas the decline in solar output is a few hundredths of one percent down,” Lockwood said. “I think that helps keep it in perspective.” (emphasis added.)

Since when do real scientists form “preemptive” conclusions? The scientific model requires hypothesis, followed by experimentation to confirm or deny the hypothesis. Moreover, a hypothesis is only good until a single a single counterexample is found, at which time a new hypothesis is formed to account for the new observation.

For example, in the 17th century Newton proposed a set of laws of physics termed, appropriately, Newtonian Physics. The laws were based on observation. However, Einstein’s work disproved the Newtonian laws. Turns out, Newtonian Physics are a reasonable approximation for low speed mechanical systems. At high speed (i.e., approaching the speed of light), Newton Physics break down and do not behave as Newton’s model predicts. Einstein revised the Newtonian hypothesis and suggested that the Newtonian model needed to account for relativity. In the face of conflicting evidence, Einstein revised the hypothesis.

Compare that to these so-called researchers. In the face of conflicting evidence, they are standing by the old model and preemptively coming up with reasons (not experimental results) to support the old hypothesis. Is that how we conduct science now? This activity is referred to as data mining by honest researchers. Data mining starts with the conclusion and builds evidence to support it (real science works the opposite direction). In so doing, a data miner typically throws out data that doesn’t support the conclusion or rationalizes why the data understates or overstates their desired position.

What is the evidence that these researchers are missing? The article spells it out in a simple syllogism. First, the article points out the lack of solar activity over the last few years (see my prior post in support of this hypothesis). It is then pointed out that a solar minimum likely contributed to the Little Ice Age. The logical conclusion then, is that because low solar activity is observed now, then we should observe a period of cooling (which we are), supporting a reasonable hypothesis that the sun has a strong effect on global climate change.

Note, the so-called National Geographic researchers point out that the sun’s activity is only “a few hundredths of one percent down,”  compared with the doubling of CO2. They fail to mention that CO2 in our atmosphere makes up 0.0383% of the atmospheric gasses. Double that, and you get an astounding 0.0766% of our atmosphere, an increase of a few hundredths of one percent!

Notice that by framing the decrease in solar output in terms of “a few hundredths of one percent” and the purported increase in CO2 in terms of “double,” it seems as thought the CO2 phenomena is a more pronounced change, even though the relative amount of both the purported change of CO2 in the atmosphere and the change in solar output can be reduced to the same, meaningless pile of words that don’t say anything about anything unless they are placed in the proper context, together with other influencing variables.

To wit, these researchers should spend more time in the lab revising the global warming hypothesis and testing it, than arguing why the prior hypotheses are still valid in the face of evidence that appears to be providing the single counterexample to invalidate the old hypothesis.

Of course, the real motivation is money. Without money they can’t do science, and the money doesn’t flow freely to those who question the religion of global warming, especially now that it appears our Federal Government is pushing the pro-global warming agenda wholeheartedly. As I have said before, science and politics arewater and oil — if we are going to do science like this, let’s make up whatever scientific conclusions are politically expedient in the day and save the money that would otherwise be used to produce the data-mined results that support whatever preconceived conclusions that put the most money and influence into the pockets of the pols.

My Aunt Liz pointed mt to this New York Times article on the reaction to Susan Boyle. Of course, the NYT can’t have a single article without singing praise to our Commander-in-Chief. That aside, the article is interesting because it provides an explanation as to why we stereotype and make snap first impression judgments.

I contend, however, that the baser instincts that are alluded to in the article are the “animal” part of us. The goal, at least from a religious point of view, is to put the animal aside and become human (a saint). On the other hand, there is a certain sense about stereotypes — especially where it comes to fast recognition of danger.

When I have been introduced to people in the past, I usually end up most interested in friendship with the people that I initially am least “attracted to.” Not attracted in a boy-girl sense, but attracted in a this person looks funny or cool sense. I am attracted to the cool people, but have the most in common once I cut through the first impression with the people who have the most substance. That probably says something about me: I think I’m cool, but really I am just a garden variety dork.

I recently debated some guys on my biking forum (STR) regarding the merits of global warming. Unfortunately, I was moderated and my posts were deleted as being off topic. I will therefore post here where I cannot be moderated.

I recently found the article copied below. In the coming days, I would like to post a number of references that call into question man-made global warming.

To a point in the article, however, I assert that ten years is too short a time say whether global warming is or isn’t happening. Moreover, it is important to note that pre-2001 there is little dispute that global warming was occurring. But as those proponents of global warming don’t hesitate to use one hurricane, or even a really hot day to interject that it must be global warming, the rules of the argument have been framed: use of irrelevantly short periods for making your point is permitted.

It should also be noted that the critics of global warming do not dispute global warming per se, rather they dispute that global warming is due to man-made carbon emissions. A number of sources are suggesting that carbon emissions have almost nothing to do with global warming or cooling.

I DEVOTED six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia’s compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector.

FullCAM models carbon flows in plants, mulch, debris, soils and agricultural products, using inputs such as climate data, plant physiology and satellite data. I’ve been following the global warming debate closely for years.

When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the old ice core data, no other suspects.

The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly? Soon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet.

But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”

Read the rest of this entry »

Her answer may have cost runner-up Miss California the title of Ms. USA, but in my eyes, she is the big winner of the night.

Asked by openly gay judge Perez Hilton her stance on gay marriage, she answered man and woman only. Apparently (unconfirmed – just rumor on the interweb), he gave her a very low score for the answer.

The liberal blogs are having an ad hominem field day (i.e., business as normal).

I have to hand it to her. That was probably the hardest answer ever given in the Ms. USA pageant. Watching the video, you could just see the question register in her eyes — she must have know that the answer she gave wouldn’t be the popular or politically correct answer.

But it was the correct answer. Good for her.

My sister sent me a link to the Susan Boyle’s “I Have a Dream” performance on Britain’s Got Talent.

I am really happy for her. It would be interesting to know the backstory because people just don’t learn to sing like that in the shower.

BUT… as I watched it, I couldn’t help being bothered, and I couldn’t put my finger on it. Not bothered with Ms. Boyle or her performance. But bothered with the whole tenor of the show and the media attention she is now getting. It wasn’t until this morning that I identified what is bothering me has everything to do with this question:

Why is Susan Boyle such a sensation?

Her performance was good, and she is very talented. But it wasn’t a perfect performance and lacked in some subtle ways (emotional range, consistent vocal quality, and flat delivery in some parts). Don’t get me wrong, I thought is was great overall, especially considering the nerves she must have been feeling and the fact is was an audition.

When you cut through everything else, however, the reason she is a sensation has everything to do with the way she looks.

I’ll bet there were more than a handful of people who auditioned for Britain’s Got Talent that were every bit as good talent-wise as Ms. Boyle. The reason they are not a sensation today is because they look “normal.” There is an unspoken assumption that a weird, less-attractive person cannot have talent.

When we see somebody who is less attractive, admits she has never been kissed, and is quirky personality-wise, we assume she is untalented. Case in point, observe the judges reaction during the performance. They were stupefied. The non-Simon male judge admitted he thought she was going to suck. He said he had never been so surprised. Why would he be surprised that a person who is trying out for Britain’s Got Talent would actually be talented? Because the judge had already decided she wouldn’t be any good based solely on what she looked like and her quirky personality.

The Savior said: “Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment” (John 7:4). Moreover, the Savior further explained the principle when He said: “[S]ee that ye do not judge wrongfully; for with that same judgment which ye judge ye shall also be judged.” (Moroni 7:18). See also “Judge Not” and Judging.

Why should we judge a person’s worth be based solely on what the person looks like? To be fair, at least the BGT judges allowed Ms. Boyle to perform. (The cynic in me doubts the altruism, however. The producers know that the embarrassment factor draws viewers like bees to honey.)

I find this all this post performance attention incredibly condescending. She is a sensation because she is a quirky, less attractive woman (who lives with cats) that just happens to be incredibly talented. Again, the assumption being who would have ever guessed that a quirky, less attractive woman (who lives with cats) could be talented?

Headline:

Obama Delivers Economic Report Card, Defends Agenda

So Obama is telling us how good a job he has done on the economy?!? Since when does the student get to determine his own grades?

I was driving back to work today. The radio station was tuned to AM and Dr. Laura was on. (Note: I don’t listen to Dr. Laura — it was tuned there because Rush in on right before she is.) As I started to drive, she was commenting on a letter from a husband about his stay at home wife.

Dr. Laura: “And I would like to share with you the poem he included [with a book he gave to his wife].”

Me [reacting to both the fact that the dude wrote the poem, as well as having to listen to the poem]: “Oh, no…”

Dr. Laura [at the same time]: “We love it when men write poems.”

And there you have it. Men vs. Women.

BTW: If you are a dude and want to write a poem for your wife, by all means. But under no circumstances do you let is publicly see the light of day. And you have to be a total retard to send it to a person who will read it nationally unless you are a professional poet. Period.

Saw this one on the way to Target:

As opposed to teaching what? And what exactly is this “peace” curriculum?

It was placed (not surprisingly) right under an Obama/Biden bumper sticker.

To top it off, as if I need to say more, in looking for the image on google I ran across this (eye roll/sigh):

My new firm is a San Diego-based firm, which has necessitated driving from Orange County down to San Diego once in awhile. For those of you not familiar with California geography, between San Diego and Orange County is Camp Pendleton, one of the Marine Corps training bases. You drive right through it along the coast.

This was the second chopper I say on this drive (incidentally, the first flew right over my car — those things are really quiet for their size). I saw this helicopter start out at sea and fly slowly inland. I thought that the stuff hanging down was some sort of cargo — and it was. People cargo. The specs by the arrow are soldiers!!

This sticker is truly stupid.

What does this really mean?

First of all, the symbols together are nonsensical. How does "peace" coexist with a religion? How do men and women coexist with a religion?

To be fair, the definition of coexist from Merriam-Webster:

1 : to exist together or at the same time

2 : to live in peace with each other especially as a matter of policy

Going with definition number two, it can be a policy that religions live peacefully with each other. I get that. Being a Mormon, I think that principle is great.

But what do people who slap this on their car in Southern California expect? In Southern California Muslims, Christians, Taoists, Jews, and so forth coexist with each other pretty well. Once in awhile you have a kook, but kook rarely focus their efforts under a principle of non-coexistence — they usually are just kooky and act that way. In fact, in most of the world, these groups coexist (keep in mind, even in the world of Islam, they kill each other as much as they kill anybody).

Men amazingly coexist with women. what? ( Who would have thought given this history and the 6 billion people on this earth that coexistence between men and women was a problem?)

Peace also coexists with … what ?

And men coexist well with Judaism (?!?), and women coexist great with peace (?!?), and … what ?

As the what ’s point out, this saying is just dumb. The meaning is schizophrenic and non-sensical once you get past the smug nodding your head yes and agreeing without thinking. Moreover, this communicates nothing useful or productive in the context of the audience to whom it is offered. Drivers who put this sticker on their cars just have to advertise (smugly, I might add) to the rest of the world that they are for getting alone with everybody.

(Except, of course, Christians. Because, what this sticker really means and to whom it is directed are Christians, who should respect every other group there.).

P.S. the sticker conspicuously doesn’t refer to secularists, who deride and attack religious beliefs at every opportunity. Just saying.