Expert on Gud’s Laws, no clue on the types of DNA

It’s become practically a cliche in media and the left that to believe in religion is to be a “science denier”.  This conveniently forgets that that men of faith have been men of science for centuries and that the university system itself came from the Catholic church.

That’s why I think this story is going to get little or no play outside of faith or conservative circles:

Landmark new research that involves analyzing millions of DNA barcodes has debunked much about what we know today about the evolution of species.

In a massive genetic study, senior research associate at the Program for the Human Environment at Rockefeller University Mark Stoeckle and University of Basel geneticist David Thaler discovered that virtually 90 percent of all animals on Earth appeared at right around the same time.

More specifically, they found out that 9 out of 10 animal species on the planet came to being at the same time as humans did some 100,000 to 200,000 years ago.

The article goes into detail about how this was discovered, the full study itself has been published in the journal Human Evolution and is available here, it’s conclusion:

Science greedily seizes simplicity among complexities. Speciation occurs via alter native pathways distinct in terms of the number of genes involved and the abruptness of transitions [148]. Nuclear variance in modern humans varies by loci in part due to unequal selection [149] and the linkage of neutral sites to those that undergo differential selection. Complexity is the norm when dealing with variance of the nuclear ensemble [150-154]. It is remarkable that despite the diversity of speciation mechanisms and path ways the mitochondrial sequence variance in almost all extant animal species should be constrained within narrow parameters.
Mostly synonymous and apparently neutral variation in mitochondria within species shows a similar quantitative pattern across the entire animal kingdom. The pattern is that that most—over 90% in the best characterized groups—of the approximately five million barcode sequences cluster into groups with between 0.0% and 0.5% variance as measured by APD, with an average APD of 0.2%

Science being science further study of these results certainly is warranted and the conclusion based on the evidece that 90% of all species appeared at the same time in study is not the same as concluding that:

Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth all kinds of living creatures: cattle, creeping things, and wild animals of all kinds.” And so it happened: God made all kinds of wild animals, all kinds of cattle, and all kinds of creeping things of the earth. God saw how good it was.

Then God said: “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and the cattle, and over all the wild animals and all the creatures that crawl on the ground.”

Genesis 1:24-26

was the cause of these results, as our skeptical humanists friends will no doubt rightly tell us.  So by all means continue the research and let it go where it may.

But before you get your hopes up about debunking this study you might want to read what I thought was the most significant quote concerning this study the article at Tech Times:  (emphasis mine)

“This conclusion is very surprising,” says Thaler, “and I fought against it as hard as I could.” 

In other words this professor realizing what the conclusions from his data implied did all he could to debunk this unexpected conclusion short of altering the data itself, but being a scientist looking for results rather than a person seeking to validate his own opinions was forced to come to the conclusions published herein.

I have no idea if Professor Thaler is a disciple of Christ or a disciple of Moses but he is without a question a disciple of Feynman who said

It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.

Or to put it another way, conventional wisdom is always correct right up until the moment it’s not.

Via Weirddave at Ace of Spade

An additional caveat to assessments of a 2030 ‘emissions gap’ is  that most NDCs are formulated in terms of CO2-equivalent (CO2e)emissions, a composite metric of warming impact of different gases based on Global Warming Potentials (GWPs) from various IPCC reports. It is therefore impossible to assess precisely the 2030 emissions of CO2 itself that are compatible with these pledges without additional assumptions, because CO2e pledges could be attained through varying combinations of long-lived and short-lived forcer mitigation.

Emissions budgets and pathways consistent with limiting warming to 1.5° C Sept 18 2017

Last month I did a post on how the variance in computer model’s predictions on Hurricane paths despite decades of data and the finest computers and training available was a simple proof of the folly of relying on computer climate models dealing with “complex natural phenomena that involve multiple interacting processes” trying to predict events decades in the future.

You aren’t dealing with a single “complex natural phenomena that involve multiple interacting processes” you are dealing with EVERY complex natural phenomena that involve multiple interacting processes that exists on the earth. Every single additional item you add increases the variation of the data models. Furthermore you are also dealing with variations in the sun, variations in the orbits of the earth, its moon and more.

And that’s just the variations in natural phenomena, imagine the variation in industrial output on the entire planet for a period of 50 or 100 years.

Think of the computer modeling and tracking of that single hurricane and apply this thinking to the climate of the earth as a whole. How accurate that model is going to be over 100 years, 50 years, 25 years or even ten years?

Would you be willing to bet even your short term economic future on it, would anyone in their right mind do so?

That post got both a ton of attention and a ton of pushback by those insisting that I was comparing apples and oranges (hurricanes vs the planetary system) not realizing that my point was primarily about computer modeling and variations of data over a long period of time.

Well one month later the Independent (via insty) acquaints us with a new study that suggests global warming models “on the hot side”

the findings indicate the danger may not be as acute as was previously thought.

Myles Allen, professor of geosystem science at the University of Oxford and one of the study’s authors told The Times: “We haven’t seen that rapid acceleration in warming after 2000 that we see in the models. We haven’t seen that in the observations.”

The original forecasts were based on twelve separate computer models made by universities and government institutes around the world, and were put together ten years ago, “so it’s not that surprising that it’s starting to divert a little bit from observations”, Professor Allen added.

Or in other words when you have actual data that decreases the variable involved suddenly the path to the goal of avoiding disaster seems easier.

Of course you won’t be surprised to hear that this change in data is being sold as a reason to move forward on draconian emissions control because we now have a chance to achieve temperature goals without actions that are: “incompatible with democracy” but take a look at the quote not from the news article but from the actual study that I lead this post with in which I highlight several key words in BOLD:

An additional caveat to assessments of a 2030 ‘emissions gap’ is  that most NDCs are formulated in terms of CO2-equivalent (CO2e)emissions, a composite metric of warming impact of different gases based on Global Warming Potentials (GWPs) from various IPCC reports. It is therefore impossible to assess precisely the 2030 emissions of CO2 itself that are compatible with these pledges without additional assumptions, because CO2e pledges could be attained through varying combinations of long-lived and short-lived forcer mitigation.

Or to put it in english:   We have no idea if we’re actually right because we are making assumptions from a range of potential figures from multiple reports (whose composites, metrics and assumptions are not detailed here) so we can’t actually say how much carbon we have to restrict to keep the planet down to our temperature goal without making guesses.

But we conclude you have to make giant adjustments to your economy and tax code, that coincidently favor connected interests that fund such studies

You’re going to base the economy of your state, your country your continent on THAT?

Read through that entire report, it has more weasel words than an end user agreement writ and as you do ponder this exchange from the classic Doctor Who episode the Aztecs:

Tlotoxl: A vision is with us, Autloc. When does it rain?
Autloc: This day. When the sun’s fire first touches the horizon to the west.
Tlotoxl: At that moment shall I present her to the people. A vision is with us and shall stand before them. And I, in supplication to the Rain God, shall offer human blood. The rains will come. No more talk against us that the gods were against us and brought drought to the land. The rains will come and power shall again be ours.
Autloc: I tell you the rains will come with or without sacrifice.
Tlotoxl: Does the High Priest of Knowledge only worship him who has fallen, and not him who has made us strong?
Autloc: I worship the same god as you.
Tlotoxl: Then above all, honour him. He has made us rulers of the land. For this he demands blood. And he shall have it.

and ask yourself if we are seeing the same scenario from our elite classes demanding a sacrifice to prevent a crisis that doesn’t exist in order to maintain their positions and wealth?

If you like what you’ve seen here and want to support independent journalism please hit DaTipJar below.

Please consider subscribing, Not only does that get you my weekly podcast emailed to you before it appears either on the site or at the 405media which graciously carries it on a weekly basis but if you subscribe at any level I will send you an autographed copy of my new book from Imholt Press: Hail Mary the Perfect Protestant (and Catholic) Prayer

Choose a Subscription level

At that time some people who were present there told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with the blood of their sacrifices.  He said to them in reply, “Do you think that because these Galileans suffered in this way they were greater sinners than all other Galileans?  By no means! But I tell you, if you do not repent, you will all perish as they did!  Or those eighteen people who were killed when the tower at Siloam fell on them do you think they were more guilty than everyone else who lived in Jerusalem?  By no means! But I tell you, if you do not repent, you will all perish as they did!”

Luke 11:1-5

We interrupt our Robert Stacy McCain in Massachusetts blogging to note something concerning Hurricane Irma.

When last I brought up Irma it was to use the vast differences between the US and European computer models for Irma’s projected path three days out illustrate the absurdity of making economic policy based on computer models of climate 50 to 100  years out.

Since then several of my Magnificent Seven writers have given the subject, particularly those in Irma’s projected path, their full attention but while I’ve kept an interested eye on the path of the storm I’ve been too busy with my houseguest Robert Stacy McCain and the event we put on yesterday to write anything on the subject.

There has however been a development on the subject worth of interrupting of Stacy McCain in Massachusetts blogging (which will resume after this post) namely it’s shift in path:

 Hurricane Irma’s leading edges whipped palm trees and kicked up the surf as it spun toward Florida with 125 mph winds Saturday on a projected new track that could subject Tampa — not Miami — to the storm’s worst fury.

Tampa has not taken a direct hit from a major hurricane in nearly a century.

The westward swing away from Miami in the overnight forecast caught many people off guard along Florida’s Gulf coast and triggered an abrupt shift in storm preparations. A major round of evacuations was ordered in the Tampa area, and shelters there soon began filling up.

This story brings two points to mind the first scientific:

If you were looking at the various computer models I was mentioning plus a few others this change in path would be a massive surprise as the idea that Tampa might be the possible target wasn’t really on your radar.  This is why residents of Tampa Bay are now scrambling to get ready for the storm heading their way.

In my opinion this doesn’t poorly reflect on the State’s moves to evacuate people in the path, nor on those who produced the models as they were based on the best data available.  Furthermore hurricanes being “complex natural phenomena that involve multiple interacting processes” it’s always possible that there will be another shift so given the immediate danger it’s better to be safe than sorry.

However it DOES reinforce my point concerning making decades long range economic decisions over computer models forecasting 50 to 100 years out. It’s one thing to take a week long economic hit when life is in clear and visible danger, it’s quite another, to redirect hundreds of billions toward the well connected for an ephemeral threat three to five generations in the future based on computer models whose variables are astoundingly vast and the hysteria of individuals who are incredibly shallow.

But there is a second point to be made, a social one:

One of the more disgraceful things we’ve been seeing from our friends on the left has been the apparent glee that they’ve expressed at the imminent danger to those they blame for the results of the election.  Despite the left eschewing all things religious they’ve apparently bought into the idea that this is a sign of God’s wrath at trump voters ,ignoring the fact that the President got few votes from Cuba and Haiti and Puerto Rico where Irma has vented so far.

So imagine their dismay at the shift in Irma’s path given the voter data Hillsbourough County including Tampa Bay from election 2016 showing that Hillary Clinton defeated Donald Trump in Tampa Bay by nearly seven points!

Now to any properly catechized Christian the entire concept is offensive.  First of all Christ specifically warned about this type of misconception over and over again both in the quote from Luke above and in dealing with the man born blind (John Chapt 9), but more importantly for a Christian all of the people both those already affected by the storm and those potentially affected are souls of equal value before God and deserving our help and support during this time of need,  furthermore as a pluralistic society it is our obligation to help our fellow americans in this crisis no matter who they are.

But I am curious to hear how those who so confidently expressed their delight at the plight of trump voters handle mother nature’s apparent change of heart.  Isn’t Irma woke?  Has mother nature donned a MAGA hat?  Perhaps ANTIFA should declare her a fascist and the Southern Poverty Law Center will label her a white supremacist and put her on a watch list.  I can see the marches and hear the protest chants now:

Hey Hey, Ho Ho, Mother Nature has got to go!

If you like what you’ve seen here and want to support independent journalism please hit DaTipJar below.

Please consider subscribing, Not only does that get you my weekly podcast emailed to you before it appears either on the site or at the 405media which graciously carries it on a weekly basis but if you subscribe at any level I will send you an autographed copy of my new book from Imholt Press: Hail Mary the Perfect Protestant (and Catholic) Prayer

Choose a Subscription level

SHREVEPORT – As a high-school English teacher I have long struggled with the distraction of cell phones in the classroom.  I know many teachers who have struggled with this issue and have found various ways to deal with it – most often simply incorporating that technology as an instructional tool.  I’ve seen “Cell Phone Jail” jars and boxes on Pinterest and I’ve seen hanging shoe storage pockets used as charging stations, where the student can drop his phone in the pocket and leave it to charge all class period.

None of these have worked for me.  The allure of that incoming text message or SnapChat photo is too powerful to ignore and invariably the student will check the phone, thus turning his attention away from instruction.

I was commiserating with another teacher about this one day in an attempt to find out what my colleagues do about this issue when someone suggested I read A Deadly Wandering by Matt Richtel. The book came out in 2014 but is based on the author’s 2010 Pulitzer Prize winning series for the New York Times. The book tells the story of a teenager who caused an accident while texting and driving which resulted in the death of two rocket scientists.  It’s a compelling read and filled with the science to support the author’s thesis which is basically that cell phone technology has insinuated itself into our most basic instinct to pay attention in order to survive, except now we are paying attention to the incoming text message or email rather than the more important tasks at hand, like perhaps driving.

This is especially true for the younger generation – those who have grown up with this technology in their hands their entire lives.

Richtel cites science that explains how the phone works sort of like an immediate gratification system and that positive reward releases dopamine in the brain each time you use the device:

“…You hear the ping of an incoming text or call, you respond; the ping happens, you respond.  And each time you respond, you get a hit of dopamine. It’s a pleasurable feeling, a release from the reward center. Then it’s gone. There is no incoming text, no stimulation. You start to feel bored. You crave another hit.”

The result is now we have a generation of kids who find it “hard to sustain periods of attention” and who “are less tolerant of waiting for delays.”  Most telling to me, and what I see in my classroom is Richtel’s point that “Their brains are rewarded not for staying on task, but for jumping to the next thing.”

So while this book is a fascinating read and does help me understand a great deal about how the brain works and how addicted we are to our devices, it still doesn’t tell me how to manage this issue in my classroom.

I had a conversation with a student one day recently along these same lines. We had been reading Macbeth and she was amazed that an actor could memorize so many lines of Shakespearean dialogue in order to perform on stage. I pointed out that it seems that our brains have evolved over time to adapt to our changing society; once traveling scops could recite 3,000 lines of Beowulf but you might be hard pressed to do that these days. And when I explained to her how we had to do research papers without internet and without computers (remember the old Reader’s Guide?) she was astounded and shook her head in disbelief. And then her phone vibrated and her eyes dropped to the screen to see who was messaging her. End of conversation.

Since I’ve been reading Richtel’s book, I’m much more conscious of my own cell phone tendencies. I even laughed at the irony of my stopping reading long enough to message the friend who had recommended the book to me.

As I said, I still have not found a classroom management strategy that will work in my room as far as the phone issue goes, but I think I’m getting closer to it by having read this book. At least now I understand that it’s a much bigger problem than I realized.

Pat Austin blogs at And So it Goes in Shreveport.

12th Doctor: Evolution perfects survival skills.

Doctor Who  Hide 2013

Of the delights of this world, man cares most for sexual intercourse. He will go to any length for it-risk fortune, character, reputation, life itself

Mark Twain

In short men.  It’s been a long fight but the sexual revolution is over…

….We WON!

DaTechGuy The final victory in the Sexual Revolution 2013

I know I’ve written about this before but after seeing this post at Robert Stacy McCain’s Site Titled  Heterosexuality Is the Structure That Keeps Sexist Oppression in Place’

containing this quote

The student quotes from “Separating Lesbian Theory From Feminist Theory,” an essay by Cheshire Calhoun in the textbook, where she says that “from a feminist perspective, sexual interaction, romantic love, marriage, and the family are all danger zones,” being patriarchal institutions that “serve male interests.”

I think it’s time to reacquaint people with some science:

One of the fallacies of some of our atheist friends is the idea that Christianity categorically rejects evolution and or natural selection.  In fact while some Christian sects do the Catholic church does not to wit

Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that “the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God” (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are. 

In fact I’ve already argued that the belief in pure evolution (fin into hand) is so mathematically improbable that said belief in that kind of evolution demands a belief in God but let’s consider the less radical and more biologically sound principle of natural selection, that is that nature rewards attributes that increase the chances of the survival of a species.

And survival of a species requires, wait for it, reproduction!

Or as Stacy McCain once put it when trying to explain the character of Jane in the Tarzan movies:

And here’s a little secret: Nice Christian girls get horny, too.

We are not supposed to know this, and certainly it is considered inappropriate for a nice Christian girl ever to admit this secret. Still, the Creator who made them male and female did not make them so unequal that the female is without sexual desire. The comparative roles played by nature and nuture in female sexuality have been furiously debated and endlessly researched. Some say that Western civilization, particularly Christianity, has misunderstood women’s sexuality, misrepresented it both in science and in popular culture, and misled women in the attitudes toward sex that they are taught and encouraged to emulate. Be that as it may, however, nature must ultimately triumph, and the creation is a tribute to her Creator, so that her mind and body are attuned to respond — as a matter of autonomic reflex — to her biological destiny. This response is influenced by her upbringing and experiences, by her education and the culture that surrounds her, yet no amount of Victorian prudery could have utterly thwarted Jane’s sexual nature.

Put simply it doesn’t matter if you believe in a creator or in a Darwin, natural selection rewards traits that ensure the survival of a species and thus as a rule men find woman desirable and women as a rule like the idea.

So if you are a believer that heterosexuality is a social construct, what are you saying?  You’re saying that alone among the species the human race did NOT evolve in such a way that encourages reproduction.

And they say belief in God requires faith.

Closing thought #1  The irony here?  Most of these same people who reject natural selection’s role in the human sex drive reject christianity.

Closing thought #2  Stacy McCain constantly refers to feminism as a death cult. The fact that he has six children who are already having children to Amanda Marcotte’s 0  proves it more,  as I said years ago

There are 9 women on her enemies list, of the 9 I could only find information concerning children for four of them.

According to IMDB Ann Marie Murrell has one child, Morgan Brittany 2. and from the Politichicks site we see Dr. Gina Loudon has 5 meanwhile the oldest person on her list Phyllis Schlafly (age 90) has, according to Wikipedia six children.

That’s a 14-0 ratio and at 26 Lila Rose hasn’t even got started yet.

So while Amanda Marcotte and feminists like Sally Miller Gearhart willingly continue down a biological dead end , their enemies are fruitful and multiplying.

Put simply the future belongs to those who show up and embracing modern feminism is a Darwin Award just waiting to happen even if it didn’t mean piling on crushing amounts of college debt for no discernible job skills.

Update: Part of a sentence is missing, fixed


I’m back trying to get that elusive $61 a day for DaTipJar. It’s been a full week since we’ve done so

I’d like to think we do good work here If you’d like to help us keep up the pace please consider hitting DaTipJar

Olimometer 2.52

Please consider Subscribing. We are currently 116.3 subscribers at $10 a month to make our goal every day without further solicitation but the numbers are even more interesting:

If less than 1/3 of 1% of our February readers this month subscribed at $10 a month we’d have the 114.5 subscribers needed to our annual goal all year without solicitation.

If less than 2/3 of 1% did, I’d be completely out of debt and able to attend CPAC

If a full 1% of our February readers subscribed at $10 a month I could afford to travel across the country covering the presidential race this year in person for a full month.

Plus of course all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.

Choose a Subscription level

Dr. Leo Brewster: We used to tell people, eat this and you’ll live to be 100. Now it’s a death chart.

Empty Next The Mentor 1991

Capt. Picard: A good scientist doesn’t function by conjecture.

Meribor: A good scientist functions by hypothesizing and then proving or disproving that hypothesis.

Star Trek TNG  The Inner Light 1992

This has been a bad week for the “Settled Science crowd”.

First there was the anniversary of the NYT statement about the end of snow just as liberal Boston was breaking every snow record in the book

After setting a seven-day snow record last week, Boston had 22 inches of fresh snow, and the storm was forecast to last into Tuesday in some areas. Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker declared a state of emergency, clearing the way for him to request snow-removal help from neighboring states.

Then there were the new revelations of altered climate data:

One of the areas that Homewood has looked at is Paraguay. In a post titled All of Paraguay’s temperature record has been tampered with, he found that GISS has systematically altered temperature records to make the past look cooler and the present warmer, and to create an entirely fictitious warming trend.

To show his findings, Homewood created animated GIFs of the data from each weather station in Paraguay, contrasting the “old” data–the data actually recorded by thermometers and reported at the time–with the “new” data, i.e., the massaged numbers that GISS now publishes. Here they are. The deception is obvious:

Then there was the “settled science on Cholesterol” is suddenly not so settled.

In a draft report issued in December, an influential federal panel — the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee — scrapped longstanding guidelines about avoiding high-cholesterol food. In the draft, cholesterol — found in foods such as egg yolks — is no longer listed as a “nutrient of concern.”

Now suddenly there are questions concerning the big bang:

“The Big Bang singularity is the most serious problem of general relativity because the laws of physics appear to break down there,” Ahmed Farag Ali at Benha University and the Zewail City of Science and Technology, both in Egypt, told

Ali and coauthor Saurya Das at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada, have shown in a paper published in Physics Letters B that the Big Bang singularity can be resolved by their in which the universe has no beginning and no end.

I’m sure many of my fellow Christians are pointing and laughing but there is a different principle here that is worth discussing.

There was a time when it was settled science that the earth was flat.

There was a time when it was settled science that the sun revolved around the earth.

There was a time when it was settled science that bleeding people was the way to remove diseases.

But because science was all about observations backed up by experimentation to come with deductions we could move beyond all of these things.

I’m old enough to remember when what I described above was the norm, lately it’s become all about the grant, about orthodoxy and pretty much all about advancing an accepted orthodoxy.  For those who have forgotten what was once in living memory let me remind you of some things.

There is a difference between a “theory” and a “law” in science.

There is a difference between offering a hypothesis and offering a proof

There is a reason why it’s called the Big Bang Theory and the Theory of Evolution etc etc etc and not the Big Bang Laws or the Laws of evolution.

Science is all about wondering aloud, testing our ideas and then changing them based on what we learn.  Once we stop questioning, once we stop trying to learn, once we turn scientific inquiry into a doctrine that if question makes one a “denier” then what we are doing is no longer science, it is a religion with it’s own inquisition

All of this isn’t science, it’s arrogance and narcissism but it doesn’t matter because in a 100 years now only will we be all dead but as our technology improves someone will prove it all wrong anyways most likely in ways that we can’t even imagine.

It will be fun

As a giant Historic” blizzard heads for the east coast to the point where I’m writing it before it gets there just in case there is no power let me suggest that even though it prompted me to actually buy a snowblower I suspect there is little “historic” about it beyond our perception of it.

One of the things about humans as creatures who exist in time is we have something called “living memory” which is defined as all the event that exist in the experience of the humans alive today.

So if the oldest person in the world is say 115 then, depending of the age of their oldest memory there is a time in living memory when there was no such thing as airplanes while on the other side of the scale a five-year old of today never remembers a time without twitter, smartphones, the internet you get the picture.

What does this have to do with the weather? Simply this. Earth has cycles, some that we can clearly see every year, for example the seasons, some which are longer, for example droughts and floods that come and go as snowfall increases and decreases. And there are others that are much longer, for example the Blizzard of 78 was a huge blizzard that shut down my state of Massachusetts (although if you’re under 40 you don’t remember it) and there was the great ice storm that shut things down around here about six years ago.

However the reality is likely that while these might be the biggest storms in my memory I suspect that there have been plenty of bigger storms like it around here. They simply happened before I was born.

Such storms would have had bigger impacts because the ability of the people to move such snow & stay warm would have been harder, but also lesser because people didn’t travel 50 to 100 miles to work daily.

The point it there are likely weather cycles that are years log, decades long, centuries long millennia long and perhaps some that are even longer.

We know cycles exist, what we don’t know is why. Of course we can theorize as our science increases or make educated guesses. I for example, would guess some of this might be because the path of the moon around the earth and the earth around the sun and the sun around whatever it orbits is not entirely consistent or gravitationally changes as other objects pass though our system or near it and perhaps cycles that the sun goes through as well etc etc etc.

But it’s human nature to turn things they see into “historic” events rather than part of the natural cycle of the universe because it seems to increase our own importance in it.

So by all means prepare for the storm that’s coming that all proper precautions but I suggest you Keep this article in mind next time someone tries to sell you something based on impending doom of the planet.

Navin: [to thieves in car] Hey guess what, you’re our 8th customer of the day, you’ve won a free oven mitt! I’ll go get it for you. [Runs to phone in office with police on the line] Yeah I’m back they’re going to be a while, don’t worry I’ve rigged it.

Phony Mr. Neusbaumn : [In car] You guys want to stick around for an oven mitt?

Thieves: Nah

The Jerk 1979

Benito took out papers.  The man snatched at them, but Benito backed away.  He read: “Dear Jon, I could understand your opposition to us last year.  There was some doubt about the process, and you expressed fears all of us felt.  But now you know better.  I have no witnesses but you told me you understood Dr. Pittman’s demonstration.  In God’s name, Jon, why do you continue?  I ask you as your sister, as a fellow scientist, as a human being Why?

Larry Niven & Jerry Pournelle Inferno 1976

There is a certain point where you just aren’t getting the bang for your buck.

Newton’s 2nd law of motion states the acceleration of an object is equal to the Net force applied to it divided by the mass. Because we do not live in the vacuum of space once an object accelerates to a greater speed, say from 50 MPH to 60 MPH the amount of force necessary to maintain that new speed (generated by the gas you give your engine) is greater that what you needed to keep the old one.

But while you might be willing to burn that extra gas to get to 60 from 50 you might not be willing to do so to get from 60 to 80 & keep it there.

Maybe you can’t control the car well at 80 or maybe you’re worried about the state policeman who tacks on a greater fine for a ticket for every mile beyond 10 you are breaking the speed limit or maybe you just don’t want to burn the gas necessary to keep your car at 80. No matter what reason you have you figure that extra Yeah 1/3 of a mile per minute just isn’t worth it.

This is known as the law of diminishing returns and applies everywhere. It might be worth investing $200-400 on a robotic vacuum to keep your house clean but unless you’re Adrian monk it’s likely not worth spending $250 to $300 per square foot to convert your house into a class 100,000 clean room.

And even if Adrian Monk was willing to spend $300 per sq ft for that Class 100,000 clean room, he might not be willing to pay the extra $225 per square foot for a class 100 one.

Bottom line, there is a point where the amount of gain you are getting is not worth the time and expense or even the maintenance costs.

At least not to YOU, but what if you are a guy who make their living off those extra costs?

What if a guy sells gas for a living? The more gas you burn the better off he is.

What if you are in the parts business? If your crash your car speeding he makes a buck of the parts for the repair or maybe gets the parts from your totaled car at a deal for resale.

What if your small town makes it’s living off of speeding tickets? If that’s the case that extra $200 fine keeps you in clover.

What if you are in the business of selling clean rooms or their components? Wouldn’t you love to be selling them to 20,000 homeowners in a small city rather than the odd lab or two in the county?

That’s what happens with NGO. Many of them start out with the best of motives, to solve a crisis or problem, some of them huge and demanding, but once you’ve built that fundraising base, once you’ve secured that government spending, once you traveled to Prague, Sydney, Barcelona and LA to speak at conferences at five star hotels with the best of food, drink and companionship do you really want to give that up just because the problem is largely solved?

Maybe you can ask Al Gore, or Al Sharpton

If you’ve ever wondered why the environmental movement, the feminist movement, the civil rights movement the amnesty movement and all the other movements always seem to be moving from crisis to crisis it’s because of one thing.

You can’t make a living off of a solved problem and you certainly can’t convince people to give if your enemies are not about to destroy the world.

And yes I do get the Irony of my tip jar appeal at the end of this post but in fairness I don’t claim it does anything more than support me & pay my writers.

Olimometer 2.52

If you think this blog’s coverage and what we do here is worth your support please consider hitting DaTipJar below

If course if you can do both, I’m  fine with that too.

Consider Subscribing to support our lineup of  John Ruberry (Marathon Pundit)  on Sunday Pat Austin (And so it goes in Shreveport)  on Monday  Tim Imholt on Tuesday,  AP Dillon (Lady Liberty1885) Thursdays, Pastor George Kelly Fridays,   Steve Eggleston on Saturdays with  Baldilocks (Tue & Sat)  and   Fausta  (Wed & Fri) of (Fausta Blog) twice a week.


Apparently a Feminist author has written a book suggesting that the daily consumption of hormones to avoid pregnancy might not be the best thing for your body.

And he tells the story with a bit of a prologue

It would seem to be just common sense that the long-term use of artificial hormones — for birth control or for anything else — could have harmful side effects. When I was in college, a guy who was into weight-lifting called me over to his dorm room one afternoon and asked me to read the very detailed warning included with the steroids (Dynabol, as I recall) he had somehow obtained on the black market.These warnings were written in a lot of scientific jargon that my buddy didn’t understand, and he asked me to translate them into plain English. So I was reading along through this lengthy list of potential side effects and reached the phrase “testicular atrophy.”

Oh, hell, no.

It kind of reminds me of all those commercials for all these various drugs for you to ‘ask your doctor about” where rather nasty side effects are listed while calm and pleasant images are on the screen to distract you from the fact that they are worse than the problem that you’re already used to.

And a Radical Feminist blogger who had her own unfortunate experiences with the pill notes

I was fascinated by Grigg-Spall’s discussion of the “dark side” of the pill. Apparently data collected from Bayer concentration camp experiments was used in developing the pill (p 31). The pill has negative side effects for women ranging from promoting bone loss (p 63) to blood clots to depression, etc. The World Health Organization (WHO) has classified the pill as a class one carcinogen alongside tobacco and asbestos (p 59). Apparently, Depo Provera is currently used in sex offender rehab programs to decrease sex drive (p 68).

These are just some of the negative aspects of HBC that third wave feminists and pharmaceutical companies routinely downplay.

Do you see what I mean about common sense? You don’t have to be a research scientist to figure out that if “testicular atrophy” is a potential side effect of a guy injecting himself with synthetic male hormones, maybe it’s not such a good idea for women to be gobbling down a daily dose of synthetic female hormones.

And given the protests over frankenfood I would think that would be an easy sell, but apparently when we are talking about contraception suddenly the standard changes.

So the radical feminist believes that the arguments of “sex-positive/mainstream feminism” are just coincidentally aligned with the interests of the pharmaceutical industry that promotes hormonal birth control. I’d bet that if a diligent researcher looked closely at the financing behind institutional feminism, they would discover that this alignment is not entirely coincidental, like how “mainstream feminism” sold out to the porn industry in the 1980s. People need to be more skeptical. Not everybody who says they’re your friend is actually your friend.

Liberals often accuse conservatives of being “science deniers” but apparently scientific principles, study and logic are only of value if they serve or can be twisted to serve their causes.

by Timothy Imholt

My name is Timothy and I am a scientist.  And I believe in climate change.

Of course that’s a little like saying I believe the earth is a sphere.  The word climate is all but synonymous with the word change.  Always has been, always will be.

In the SOTU, Obama said man made climate change is a fact and everyone agrees.

Except the data.  Data doesn’t care.  Data doesn’t care about grant funding.  Data doesn’t care about tenure granted by leftist review boards made up of English majors and political scientists.  Data doesn’t care that you have an agenda to control the economy, or rich contributors who make “green” energy products that you have to pay back.

Data just is.

Data says that the biggest factor in our climate is this little trivial thing known as our Sun.

Politicians– and so-called scientists looking for tenure or grants– seem to treat the Sun as irrelevant to our climate.  This, of course, is silly.  Experience a sunny day sometime.

Or think of it this way.  Is it just a coincidence that the coldest part of our globe is the farthest from the Sun, and the warmest is the closest?  Out of 92 MILLION miles, a few thousand miles makes the difference between tropical dangerous heat, and unlivable deadly cold.  There are other climate forces at work but at the basic level that is the difference.  Should the Sun be considered a force in climate?  I say yes, it should be at least put into the model, yet sadly in some models it is not.

Now, this would be irrelevant if the Sun were a constant, if it didn’t have cycles or never changed its intensity.  But that is NOT the case.

And the inconvenient data says that Earth’s temperature cycles mirror the Sun’s fluctuations.

About 10 years ago I published a paper, along with several very well-known theoretical physicists, in the peer reviewed journal Physical Review E.  In that paper we compared solar irradiance to global temperature cycles.  There was a shockingly accurate match.  Sun’s irradiance goes up, temperature goes up.  The alternative is also true.


Perhaps Barack Obama should forget holding back the tides like King Cnut by cutting back on coal-fired power plants and get his Solyndra pals to start working on a giant thermostat for the Sun.

It would do just about as much good.  Call it shovel ready rhetoric.

In science we always look for the fundamentals.  What is really behind some action or reaction.

In politics I say we should apply the same problem solving technique.

Let’s look at the proposed Carbon Credit Exchange.  In order for that entity to be viable from a financial perspective one must have the government requiring businesses and individuals to participate (sound familiar?).

Who owns it?

Well, not surprisingly Al Gore owns a large percentage of it, as do some investors he now works with.  I am all for profit making entities.  However, I am also for full disclosure.

Does former Vice President Gore bring this up when he is out pushing for these types of things?  I have never heard of him doing so.  Yet if the laws pass requiring the use of this exchange, VP Gore will become a billionaire, not just a multi-millionaire overnight.

Anyone see a motivating factor here for the former VP?

What I propose is that there is a REAL discussion on climate.  In that discussion both sides must be heard and both sides must bring real (not hockey stick faked) data.  Any data proven to be false must immediately throw the conclusions drawn on that data in the dust bin.

Once real, scientific, not emotional, non-political conclusions are drawn, then we decide a course of action.  But, as long as those pushing the agenda are taking campaign contributions or stand to directly profit I will continue to have doubts.

Now that I have written all of this, someone is probably saying I am pro-big business, pro-pollution, and the like.  Well, I am pro-big business because they employ people.  I am NOT pro-pollution because I like to go hiking, kayaking, etc as well.  But there must be honesty in our government.  There must also be financial responsibly in our government.  This issue of climate change is starting to look more and more like the worlds largest Ponzi scheme.  That must not be allowed while conclusions are NOT agreed upon by all scientists, contrary to the repeated statements by our elected officials.

Timothy Imholt PhD

Physicist by training, Engineer by paycheck, fiction writer for fun, and co-author of the critically acclaimed novel Forest of Assassins, as well as the China Bones series available now on Amazon.


Olimometer 2.52

It’s Wednesday and DaTipJar is mired at $32 of our $345 goal less than 10%

Like a political campaign this site needs true believers to keep things going. The question becomes do we have 13 True Believers who can kick in $25 today to get us to a full paycheck to pay the mortgage and full coffers to cover our Magnificent Seven.

That’s up to you, and I ask you to be one of them by hitting DaTipJar below

Only 55 3/4 more subscribers @ at $20 a month are necessary to secure the cost of DaMagnificent Seven & my monthly mortgage on a permanent basis. If you think blogs like this willing to highlight the double standard of the Democrats & media online & on radio are worth it, please consider subscribing and suggesting a friend do so as well.