Random Unfinished Thoughts » science http://www.schierer.org/~luke/log Fri, 05 Feb 2010 00:02:38 +0000 en hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.2 Global Warming “Paused” http://www.schierer.org/~luke/log/20090303-0825/global-warming-paused http://www.schierer.org/~luke/log/20090303-0825/global-warming-paused#comments Tue, 03 Mar 2009 13:25:29 +0000 Luke Schierer http://www.schierer.org/~luke/log/?p=1016 While 2005-2007 were years of record warmth, the overall trend since 2001 averages out to a nice flat line.1 But while we could see this flat line continue, or even drop down into a period of cooling, you should not doubt that global warming is real, and is caused by us. It might take 30 years to show up again, but when it does, even though we do not know why things are cooling now, we are sure the warming will be “explosive.”2

Or, we could accept that what we really had was not “global warming” but “solar warming,” which affected Mars and Jupiter as well, and that as the sun’s activity level has dropped, so too has our temperature. Or we could accept that we really do not have all that much ability to influence our planet’s climate yet, and that the correlation of green house gases the last few decades did not equal causation. We could be honest and admit that we do not know all that much about climatology, not much more than we know about the weather next week.

But then we would have to admit that all this hype and all this worry, and all of the billions of dollars going into trying to stave off what is, under global warming theory, irreversible, is wrong headed.

We cannot do that. Why, some people make careers out of scaring the rest of us with how evil we are, and how much we are hurting the planet! They would be out of a job!

  1. Mr. Michael Reilly “Global Warming: On Hold?” Discovery Channel. Viewed 2009-03-03. http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/03/02/global-warming-pause.html ↩

  2. Ibid. http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/03/02/global-warming-pause-02.html ↩

]]> http://www.schierer.org/~luke/log/20090303-0825/global-warming-paused/feed 0 Dawkins stumbles http://www.schierer.org/~luke/log/20090301-0936/dawkins-stumbles http://www.schierer.org/~luke/log/20090301-0936/dawkins-stumbles#comments Sun, 01 Mar 2009 14:36:31 +0000 Luke Schierer http://www.schierer.org/~luke/log/?p=1014 Periodically when I follow the RSS link to Dr. Mike Adams’ articles, I end up somewhere else. This time, I read the entire article before I realized it.

It seems that Dr. Dawkins has again accepted an invitation to debate a theist. This time, it further appears that he tried to rig the debate, and deny his opponent a real opportunity to refute his theory. Picking a columnist with this hope proves to be foolish. Mr. Dinesh D’Souza shows how Dr. Dawkins stumbled in thinking that Mr. D’Souza would not have a chance to refute his (Dr. Dawkins’) poor logic.1 Dr. Dawkins excuse is probably that as this happened on Al-Jazeera, and not a more reputable news source, his slip will be missed.

PS: Judging from the datestamp in the URL, I would say that Dr. Dawkins was correcting in assuming his slip would be missed by most people.

  1. Mr. Dinesh D’Souza. “Countering Richard Dawkins on Al-Jazeera” Townhall.com Viewed 2009-03-01 http://townhall.com/columnists/DineshDSouza/2008/07/28/countering_richard_dawkins_on_al-jazeera ↩

]]> http://www.schierer.org/~luke/log/20090301-0936/dawkins-stumbles/feed 0 Lamarck wins http://www.schierer.org/~luke/log/20090216-0910/lamarck-wins http://www.schierer.org/~luke/log/20090216-0910/lamarck-wins#comments Mon, 16 Feb 2009 14:10:31 +0000 Luke Schierer http://www.schierer.org/~luke/log/?p=1005 I need to go back and finish reading this article, but the first page skimmed seems to indicate that there was more to Lamarck’s theory than we have given him credit for.1

  1. Ms. Emily Singer. “A Comeback for Lamarckian Evolution? Two new studies show that the effects of a mother’s early environment can be passed on to the next generation.” Technology Review. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Viewed 2009-02-16. http://www.technologyreview.com/biomedicine/22061/ ↩

]]> http://www.schierer.org/~luke/log/20090216-0910/lamarck-wins/feed 0 Explaining http://www.schierer.org/~luke/log/20081114-1427/explaining http://www.schierer.org/~luke/log/20081114-1427/explaining#comments Fri, 14 Nov 2008 19:27:54 +0000 Luke Schierer http://www.schierer.org/~luke/log/?p=977 The quote1 actually says

  • science != consensus
  • politics == consensus
  • science == ∃ X such that ((X == investigator) && (X == “correct”); where (“correct” == “results are verifiable in reference to the real world”))

The problem is that skepticism does not reign throughout much of science. Rather, dogmatism reigns. Anyone who dissents is silenced. If the environment we have today existed, Einstein would not have been able to publish, he upset too many careers. But back then the science journals were not as tightly controlled as they are now, and it was more possible then for a radical idea to get published.

It is then asked, “what does it mean to say in reference to the real world.”2 A valid question. What is meant here is that results have to bear out, taking relativity for an example again, we can see that the data fits better than Newtonian physics. However, Global Warming doesn’t account for a great deal of the data out there. Relativity fits the real world. Global warming is questionable at best.

  1. Mr. Luke Schierer. “Quote of the Day” Random Unfinished Thoughts. 2008-11-14 http://www.schierer.org/~luke/log/20081114-0722/quote-of-the-day-35 ↩

  2. “damian792″. “Ramblings” The Clydesdale Chronicles 2008-11-14 http://damian792.livejournal.com/100114.html ↩

]]> http://www.schierer.org/~luke/log/20081114-1427/explaining/feed 0 Carbon Dating recalibration http://www.schierer.org/~luke/log/20080916-0727/carbon-dating-recalibration http://www.schierer.org/~luke/log/20080916-0727/carbon-dating-recalibration#comments Tue, 16 Sep 2008 12:27:48 +0000 Luke Schierer http://www.schierer.org/~luke/log/?p=954 As I understand things, even if it takes 10 million years to create the pattern that allows me to identify an error, it is still an error. Perhaps we are off by 100 years, perhaps by 100 million years, but when the article says that what was thought to be constant for the globe now has localized variations, and further more might not be at all correlated as the previous theory suggested, I think I am perfectly justified in saying that we do not know how old things are.

“I do not know” is a whole lot better than “I am going to believe something I know to be untrue just because you cannot offer a better theory” in my book.

]]> http://www.schierer.org/~luke/log/20080916-0727/carbon-dating-recalibration/feed 0 Amusement value http://www.schierer.org/~luke/log/20080910-0624/amusement-value http://www.schierer.org/~luke/log/20080910-0624/amusement-value#comments Wed, 10 Sep 2008 11:24:22 +0000 Luke Schierer http://www.schierer.org/~luke/log/?p=944 I am amused to find myself quoted here as an example of what all creationists argue. I would have thought that he could have found a better source. I am not really sure what he was trying to accomplish by quoting me though.

]]> http://www.schierer.org/~luke/log/20080910-0624/amusement-value/feed 1 New Red Spots http://www.schierer.org/~luke/log/20080524-0840/new-red-spots http://www.schierer.org/~luke/log/20080524-0840/new-red-spots#comments Sat, 24 May 2008 13:40:41 +0000 Luke Schierer http://www.schierer.org/~luke/log/20080524-0840/new-red-spots Why is Jupiter getting warmer near the equator?1 I thought all climate change was due to humans. It is not even worth considering whether nor not whatever is warming Jupiter might also be affecting Earth.

  1. NASA, ESA, M. Wong, I. de Pater (UC Berkely), et al. “Jupiter’s Three Red Spots” Astronomy Picture of the Day. NSA 2008-05-23 http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap080523.html ↩

]]> http://www.schierer.org/~luke/log/20080524-0840/new-red-spots/feed 0 quote of the day http://www.schierer.org/~luke/log/20071127-1408/quote-of-the-day-30 http://www.schierer.org/~luke/log/20071127-1408/quote-of-the-day-30#comments Tue, 27 Nov 2007 19:08:41 +0000 Luke Schierer http://www.schierer.org/~luke/log/20071127-1408/quote-of-the-day-30 “This does not mean that we should never take action to prevent evil, or should sit back and wait for God to do something. It does mean that we should not panic, or become needlessly anxious, or jump to rash conclusions, which may cause more harm than good.” – Melinda Selmys1

The “This” above refers to Christ’s command that we be not afraid.

  1. Ms. Melinda Sylmys. “Faith in a Climate of Fear” National Catholic Register. November 25 – December 1, 2007 Issue. 2007-11-27 http://ncregister.com/site/article/7341/ ↩

]]> http://www.schierer.org/~luke/log/20071127-1408/quote-of-the-day-30/feed 0 Everything in moderation http://www.schierer.org/~luke/log/20071107-1016/everything-in-moderation http://www.schierer.org/~luke/log/20071107-1016/everything-in-moderation#comments Wed, 07 Nov 2007 15:16:40 +0000 Luke Schierer http://www.schierer.org/~luke/log/20071107-1016/everything-in-moderation The New York Times reports that there is a study released in the Journal of the American Medical Association stating that there are health benefits to being overweight.1 Those classified as being “overweight” have a lower risk of death than any of the other 3 groups (“underweight,” “normal” and “obese”). Apparently such persons, at a Body Mass Index between 25 and 30, have a lower risk of death from some diseases, such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, infections and lung disease, that outweighs their risk of death from other diseases. These results apparently persisted even after factoring out smokers, which I am under the impression are the bulk of lung disease deaths.

Some researchers apparently think this means we should redefine “normal.” Others think that the differences in health short of death outweigh the likelihood of dying sooner. Go figure.

  1. Ms. Gina Kolata. “Causes of Death Are Linked to a Person’s Weight” New York Times (online) Health section. 2007-11-07. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/07/health/07fat.html?ex=1352091600&en=df14080d2f4189b6&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss ↩

]]> http://www.schierer.org/~luke/log/20071107-1016/everything-in-moderation/feed 0 quote of the day http://www.schierer.org/~luke/log/20071015-1025/quote-of-the-day-26 http://www.schierer.org/~luke/log/20071015-1025/quote-of-the-day-26#comments Mon, 15 Oct 2007 15:25:46 +0000 Luke Schierer http://www.schierer.org/~luke/log/20071015-1025/quote-of-the-day-26 “Scientism’s dismissals are … self-refuting.

Those dismissals are also vacuous, as if affixing the label non-science to an argument tells us anything meaningful about the strength of the argument. The “it isn’t science” response to contemporary design arguments is neither a reasonable nor a particularly stimulating reply. In such cases, the mathematical/empirical approach has degenerated from a way of thinking into a way of stopping thought, a Procrustean bed for chopping off and discarding whatever doesn’t fit within its narrow confines. ” – Benjamin D. Wiker and Jonathan Witt1

  1. Benjamin D. Wiker and Jonathan Witt. “Pope Benedict and Nature’s Genius” Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture. 2007-10-01. http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=4241&program=DI%20Main%20Page%20-%20Article&callingPage=discoMainPage Originally in Crisis Magizine, http://insidecatholic.com/Joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=803&Itemid=48 ↩

]]> http://www.schierer.org/~luke/log/20071015-1025/quote-of-the-day-26/feed 0 extended quote of the day http://www.schierer.org/~luke/log/20071007-2248/extended-quote-of-the-day http://www.schierer.org/~luke/log/20071007-2248/extended-quote-of-the-day#comments Mon, 08 Oct 2007 03:48:18 +0000 Luke Schierer http://www.schierer.org/~luke/log/20071007-2248/extended-quote-of-the-day

Let me be clear. I am not saying the origin of life was simply an extremely improbable accident. I am saying the origin of life was deliberately, purposely arranged, just as the fundamental laws and constants and many other anthropic features of nature were deliberately, purposely arranged. But in what I’ll call the “extended-fine-tuning” view, the origin of life is merely an additional planned feature culminating in intelligent life. The origin of life is simply closer to the very same goal that other, more distant anthropic features (laws, chemical properties, and so forth) were also put in place to bring about. Nonetheless, just as it was possible to discover a set of proximate conditions that would lead to the origin of the moon, it may also be possible to arrange a local set of conditions that would lead to life, and that would be a scientifically interesting project. If it succeeded, some would claim that it revealed that life needed no miracle. But in fact it would show the beginning of life needed a directing intelligence.1[emphasis added]

This is an important thought. A key quote. It contains many ideas all of which are central to Intelligent Design. It contains one thought, at the end, that many people cannot grasp. If I do something, if I will an end and achieve it, then I have not proved that it could happen without someone to will it. I have not proved that it is possible for it to happen randomly. It is possible, it may even be likely, that it is only with intervention that it can possibly happen. Take weighted dice. Not just slightly weighted dice that increase your odds, but do not guarantee a particular outcome, but massively weighted dice. Dice that if you drop them, will always land with a given face up. You would have to place such dice for them to land with the weighted face up, the reverse of what physics tells you should happen. So too, it is possible that my experiment only shows that intelligence can cause something.

For evolution to be true, and not just possible, something more is needed. The bar is higher. The scientists must prove that something can happen as a result of undirected, unwilled chance. Not only that, but for it to form a realistic explanation, they must show that it is likely to have happened.

It is possible, so I am told by physicists, that the universe could just wink out of existence in a singular quantum event. It is possible, according to that physics, that we winked into existence in precisely the same manner one second before you read this. Neither are particularly likely. Neither make particularly believable or useful explanations.

Evolution might be possible. I do not think so, from what I have read, but it might be. I sincerely doubt anyone could argue that it is likely enough to make a believable explanation.

All the rest is very true. There is a very long list of things that have to be just so for us to be here. It defies probability. It stretches probability that we exist anywhere. Some authors say it even defies probability that we are here anywhere.

If you ask me to believe that there are a multitude of universes, one for each throw of each coin, and that is the best you can do to make sense of the universe, you can take your materialist theories and smoke them. They are not worth the paper it would take to print them; you have come up with something no more scientific than either of the creation stories found in the Bible. Any of the three resulting stories (one from the materialists, two from the Bible) might in a literal, historical, sense be true. None of them qualify as a scientific theory.

  1. Dr. Michael J. Behe. The Edge of Evolution ISBN-13:978-0-7432-9620-5. ISBN-10:0-7432-9620-6 Page 216. ↩

]]> http://www.schierer.org/~luke/log/20071007-2248/extended-quote-of-the-day/feed 16 homosexuality as a disease to be cured http://www.schierer.org/~luke/log/20070919-1224/homosexuality-as-a-disease-to-be-cured http://www.schierer.org/~luke/log/20070919-1224/homosexuality-as-a-disease-to-be-cured#comments Wed, 19 Sep 2007 17:24:00 +0000 Luke Schierer http://www.schierer.org/~luke/log/20070919-1224/homosexuality-as-a-disease-to-be-cured The study1 findings were released in book form, not in a journal. I suspect that means that its findings are useless and meaningless. Still, a pair of real researchers, working for institutions of higher learning (a college and a university respectively), found a 67% success rate in changing sexual orientation through a program of “group discussions, counseling, journal writing, Scripture reading and prayer.”2

However, since it is not in a peer reviewed journal, their effort is wasted, their study might as well not exist.

  1. Mr. Stanton Jones and Mr. Mark Yarhouse. Ex-Gays? A Longitudinal Study of Religiously Mediated Change in Sexual Orientation. ISBN unknown. Referenced at “Study finds sexual orientation can be changed through religious mediation” Catholic News Agency. 2007-09-19 http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=10430 ↩

  2. Catholic News Agency. “”Study finds sexual orientation can be changed through religious mediation” Catholic News Agency. 2007-09-19 http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=10430 ↩

]]> http://www.schierer.org/~luke/log/20070919-1224/homosexuality-as-a-disease-to-be-cured/feed 0 Evolution is anti-religion http://www.schierer.org/~luke/log/20070919-0939/evolution-is-anti-religion http://www.schierer.org/~luke/log/20070919-0939/evolution-is-anti-religion#comments Wed, 19 Sep 2007 14:39:05 +0000 Luke Schierer http://www.schierer.org/~luke/log/20070919-0939/evolution-is-anti-religion Periodically I get challenged on my repeated assertion that Evolution, to the (limited) extent it can be called a single theory, is inherently opposed to theism. Mr. Casey Luskin is here today to back me up on this one, having taken the time to summarize some recent examples of this.1 Such statements as these lend credence to my assertion that evolution is not, in fact, a scientific theory at all, but is rather a philosophical one. His examples come from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Nature, Cell Cycle, Microbe Magazine, and Gene. They also come from a variety of authors.

This listing of examples is short, and is by no means definitive proof. Still, it does lend at least some credence.

  1. Mr. Casey Luskin. “Scientific Journals Promoting Evolution alongside Materialism” Evolution News & Views, The Discovery Institute. 2007-09-19 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/09/scientific_journals_promoting.html ↩

]]> http://www.schierer.org/~luke/log/20070919-0939/evolution-is-anti-religion/feed 0 A Y2k bug in climatology http://www.schierer.org/~luke/log/20070813-1035/a-y2k-bug-in-climatology http://www.schierer.org/~luke/log/20070813-1035/a-y2k-bug-in-climatology#comments Mon, 13 Aug 2007 15:35:35 +0000 Luke Schierer http://www.schierer.org/~luke/log/20070813-1035/a-y2k-bug-in-climatology It appears that not all Y2k bugs have been fixed; one was found in NASA’s handling of raw climate data.1 After the corrected figures2 have been released, it turns out that 1934, and not 1998, is the warmest year on record. Why a Y2k bug would have changed the readings for 1998 I am unsure. It is very puzzling, but the new data linked to does in fact seem to state that. Still, I wonder if the author is not misinterpreting something (though I would of course love to be able to state that our warmest years were so far back).

UPDATE: 2007-08-17: As I watch the confused reporting on this, I see very little worth linking to. Still, it seems to be that this was not a Y2k bug, though the fact that there was a bug of some sort, and that it has been corrected, is not challenged. Many are also being very quick to challenge the idea that the ranking of various years matters at all.

  1. Mr. Michael Asher. “Blogger Finds Y2K Bug in NASA Climate Data.” Daily Tech. 2007-08-09. http://www.dailytech.com/Blogger+finds+Y2K+bug+in+NASA+Climate+Data/article8383.htm ↩

  2. NASA. “Contiguous 48 U.S. Surface Air Temperature Anomaly (C)” http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt ↩

]]> http://www.schierer.org/~luke/log/20070813-1035/a-y2k-bug-in-climatology/feed 0 Natural forces offset global warming http://www.schierer.org/~luke/log/20070810-1030/natural-forces-offset-global-warming http://www.schierer.org/~luke/log/20070810-1030/natural-forces-offset-global-warming#comments Fri, 10 Aug 2007 15:30:15 +0000 Luke Schierer http://www.schierer.org/~luke/log/20070810-1030/natural-forces-offset-global-warming Global warming is real. We have not seen it in much of the recent data1, the ice at the antarctic is increasing2, and other parts of the southern hemisphere are getting colder also,3 but it is real. Scientists everywhere assure us of this fact.

Not only is it real, but it is our fault. It does not matter that some of the data from Mars indicates that Mars might be warming also.4 This does not matter; the greenhouse gases we produce must be the cause.

That is why even though scientists are now sure that their models underestimated the role of various natural weather variations, and that a new model that tries to take them into better account predicts no warming for at least another 2 years, we can be sure that after that things will get really bad.5 We should trust this model, even though none of the previous ones have been all that accurate.

This incredible explanation is why I have taken the time to recap some of the highlights of the last year or so of following this issue. While scientists have tried to refute the role of the sun in the Earth’s climate (an article I regrettably lost the link to before I had a chance to write about it), they have ignored (so far as I have seen following only the public news) the data points I have listed here. It seems to me that what we do not know about climate far eclipses what we do know about it, and that any gloom and doom projection should be taken with a large grain of salt.

Particularly when it is saying, in essence, “we know we have been claiming it will get warmer for years now. It has not really gotten any warmer, but just keep paying us, it will any year now.”

  1. AFP. “Natural forces offset global warming last two years: study” Brietbart.com 2007-08-09 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070809225722.demeczc1&show_article=1 The point in question is only implied in the article, it mentions that weather variations will “continue to keep temperatures flat.” ↩

  2. Mr. Luke Schierer. “Solar Radiation & Climate” Random Unfinished Thoughts. 2007-02-12 http://www.schierer.org/~luke/log/20070212-1037/solar-radiation-climate ↩

  3. Mr. Luke Schierer. “Because Global warming is indesputable” Random Unfinished Thoughts. 2007-06-27 http://www.schierer.org/~luke/log/20070627-1326/because-global-warming-is-indesputable ↩

  4. Mr. Luke Schierer. “Global warming elsewhere in the solar system” Random Unfinished Thoughts. 2007-02-05 http://www.schierer.org/~luke/log/20070205-1115/global-warming-elsewhere-in-the-solar-system ↩

  5. AFP. “Natural forces offset global warming last two years: study” Brietbart.com 2007-08-09 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070809225722.demeczc1&show_article=1 ↩

]]> http://www.schierer.org/~luke/log/20070810-1030/natural-forces-offset-global-warming/feed 0 Sunshine is healthy http://www.schierer.org/~luke/log/20070804-0809/sunshine-is-healthy http://www.schierer.org/~luke/log/20070804-0809/sunshine-is-healthy#comments Sat, 04 Aug 2007 13:09:48 +0000 Luke Schierer http://www.schierer.org/~luke/log/20070804-0809/sunshine-is-healthy It appears that maintaining adequate vitamin D is linked with avoiding cancer.1 While the article primarily looks at breast cancer, it also mentions colon and prostate cancer, and one researcher quoted thinks that it might be true of cancer in general.

  1. Mr. Nigel Hawkes. “Sunshine helps in the fight against breast cancer” Times Online 2007-08-04. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article2195614.ece ↩

]]> http://www.schierer.org/~luke/log/20070804-0809/sunshine-is-healthy/feed 1 Explaining glacier melt without carbon dioxide http://www.schierer.org/~luke/log/20070802-1550/explaining-glacier-melt-without-carbon-dioxide http://www.schierer.org/~luke/log/20070802-1550/explaining-glacier-melt-without-carbon-dioxide#comments Thu, 02 Aug 2007 20:50:32 +0000 Luke Schierer http://www.schierer.org/~luke/log/20070802-1550/explaining-glacier-melt-without-carbon-dioxide Looking at the effect of brown clouds over the Indian Ocean, a group of United States researchers have managed to explain the fact that glaciers in the Himalayas are melting without resorting to blaming any and all warming on carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases.1 They claim the warming is caused by the pollution put out from burning wood and fossil fuels. The answer to both of these problems is to improve the power generation in Asia, and the general standard of living.

  1. BBC News. “Asia’s brown clouds ‘warm planet’” World News Summary 2007-08-01. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6926597.stm ↩

]]> http://www.schierer.org/~luke/log/20070802-1550/explaining-glacier-melt-without-carbon-dioxide/feed 1 Optical Illusion http://www.schierer.org/~luke/log/20070801-2158/optical-illusion http://www.schierer.org/~luke/log/20070801-2158/optical-illusion#comments Thu, 02 Aug 2007 02:58:47 +0000 Luke Schierer http://www.schierer.org/~luke/log/20070801-2158/optical-illusion I wonder what those of my friends who know more about the brain would/will make of this video:

]]> http://www.schierer.org/~luke/log/20070801-2158/optical-illusion/feed 0 Still free to read the Bible http://www.schierer.org/~luke/log/20070724-1123/still-free-to-read-the-bible http://www.schierer.org/~luke/log/20070724-1123/still-free-to-read-the-bible#comments Tue, 24 Jul 2007 16:23:24 +0000 Luke Schierer http://www.schierer.org/~luke/log/20070724-1123/still-free-to-read-the-bible There exists an elementary school that has a “reading time” for its third-grade students, in which they may read a book of their choosing. One child chose to read the Bible, and was told by the school that he may not.1 Unfortunately, I cannot honestly express surprise that this series of events happened in the United States. Fortunately, the school in question backed down after receiving a letter from the Thomas More Law Center reminding them that such activity has been repeatedly protected by the United States Supreme Court.

  1. Catholic News Agency. “Public school district reverses decision, guarantees student’s right to read Bible” Catholic News Agency. 2007-07-24. http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=9951 ↩

]]> http://www.schierer.org/~luke/log/20070724-1123/still-free-to-read-the-bible/feed 0 Because Global warming is indesputable http://www.schierer.org/~luke/log/20070627-1326/because-global-warming-is-indesputable http://www.schierer.org/~luke/log/20070627-1326/because-global-warming-is-indesputable#comments Wed, 27 Jun 2007 18:26:42 +0000 Luke Schierer http://www.schierer.org/~luke/log/20070627-1326/because-global-warming-is-indesputable Johannesburg, South Africa has its first confirmed snowfall in more than 25 years1. While the city normally gets cold, with an average minimum of 4.7 degrees Celsius in June, this is the first snow they have had since 1981. The capital, Pretoria, had its first snow since 1968, an even longer period.

Meanwhile, Australian citrus farmers are worried that their fruit might have suffered frost damage after experiencing their coldest June day ever.2 These data points fit well with earlier news stories that it is getting colder in the Antarctic.3

  1. Mr. Stewart Bailey. “Johannesburg Gets 4 Inches of Snow, First Since 1981″ Bloomberg.com 2007-06-27 http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20670001&refer=india&sid=awNaI9yDGOnc ↩

  2. Ms. Amelia Elliston. “Fruit may be frost damaged” <www.riverinamediagroup.com.au> 2007-06-27 http://www.riverinamediagroup.com.au/Home/news.asp?publication=The%20Area%20News&articleType=Local&ArticleID=18710 ↩

  3. Mr. Luke Schierer. “Solar Radiation & Climate” Random Unfinished Thoughts. 2007-02-12 http://www.schierer.org/~luke/log/20070212-1037/solar-radiation-climate ↩

]]> http://www.schierer.org/~luke/log/20070627-1326/because-global-warming-is-indesputable/feed 1 Quote of the day http://www.schierer.org/~luke/log/20070621-1140/quote-of-the-day-18 http://www.schierer.org/~luke/log/20070621-1140/quote-of-the-day-18#comments Thu, 21 Jun 2007 16:40:01 +0000 Luke Schierer http://www.schierer.org/~luke/log/20070621-1140/quote-of-the-day-18 “If, as the editors of Nature claim, our minds are merely the product of materialistic evolution, then the opinion that our minds are merely the product of materialistic evolution is itself just the product of evolution.” – Michael Egnor1

In other words, if their theory is true, we cannot know it or prove it, because there is no true intelligence to be doing the thinking. It is all just the random interactions of random atoms. In order for rational thought to proceed, we must assume that, whatever is true, materialist philosophy is false.

  1. Mr. Michael Egnor. “The End of Stories: the Evolutionary Psychology of Evolutionary Psychology” Evolution News & Views. The Discovery Institute. 2007-06-21 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/06/the_evolutionary_psychology_of.html ↩

]]> http://www.schierer.org/~luke/log/20070621-1140/quote-of-the-day-18/feed 0 The sun controls our climate http://www.schierer.org/~luke/log/20070621-0938/the-sun-controls-our-climate http://www.schierer.org/~luke/log/20070621-0938/the-sun-controls-our-climate#comments Thu, 21 Jun 2007 14:38:13 +0000 Luke Schierer http://www.schierer.org/~luke/log/20070621-0938/the-sun-controls-our-climate The sun not only varies in brightness, it also has a major impact on how much cosmic radiation reaches the earth. Between the two, it is the primary cause of change in our climate.1 This article focuses on a series of mud cores from Canada, but also has a number of references to scholarly journals.

  1. Mr. R. Timothy Patterson. “Read the sunspots” National Post. 2007-06-21. http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=597d0677-2a05-47b4-b34f-b84068db11f4&p=4 ↩

]]> http://www.schierer.org/~luke/log/20070621-0938/the-sun-controls-our-climate/feed 0 Do we even know the *current* temperature? http://www.schierer.org/~luke/log/20070618-0952/do-we-even-know-the-current-temperature http://www.schierer.org/~luke/log/20070618-0952/do-we-even-know-the-current-temperature#comments Mon, 18 Jun 2007 14:52:18 +0000 Luke Schierer http://www.schierer.org/~luke/log/20070618-0952/do-we-even-know-the-current-temperature The Pittsburgh Tribute-Review reports that there is reason to doubt the temperature recordings from NOAA.1 According to the article, a former meteorologist is spot-checking the quality of the NOAA weather stations across the country. So far only a few of the 1,221 stations have been checked, so much work remains to be done. Still, at least some disturbing news has been found. At least a few of these stations are no longer in isolated rural areas. Though they are intended to “be 100 feet from buildings, not placed on hot concrete, etc,”2 some are in close proximity to air conditioning exhaust vents, cell phone towers, and parking lots. This would seriously compromise the data, because of the highly localized nature of the temperature in such areas. It does not take a rocket scientist to realize that the air around an exhaust vent might be experiencing a warming trend after all.

  1. Mr. Bill Steigerwald. “Helping along global warming” Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. 2007-06-17. http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/columnists/steigerwald/s_513013.html ↩

  2. Ibid. ↩

]]> http://www.schierer.org/~luke/log/20070618-0952/do-we-even-know-the-current-temperature/feed 0 Further Complexity in Climate http://www.schierer.org/~luke/log/20070331-0917/further-complexity-in-climate http://www.schierer.org/~luke/log/20070331-0917/further-complexity-in-climate#comments Sat, 31 Mar 2007 14:17:03 +0000 Luke Schierer http://www.schierer.org/~luke/log/20070331-0917/further-complexity-in-climate Climate is a complex thing. I doubt anyone would debate that. Still, it appears that those scientists advancing the idea of global warming, are pushing an overly simplified view of climate. In my last few posts on the subject, I have looked at the Sun’s influence on the Earth, and the idea held by some dissident scientists that it, and not carbon emissions, is responsible for global warming. Yesterday, Vincas pointed me at an article that presents yet another possible cause.

In a study released Wednesday, scientists are not debating that the average temperature rose some in California between 1950 and 2000. In that they agree with global warming activists. They claim that the cause of that warming is not greenhouse gasses, but urbanization itself.[1]

It appears that cities do not cool as much during the night as farm or wild land does, and that suburban areas fall somewhere in the middle. As California has grown more urban, it has thus cooled less each night, leading to a higher average temperature.

Even given a constant input of energy, this would lead to significant warming, fewer cold days and more warm/hot days. It would, in effect, act much like an oven, because each day’s warming would be building on that of the day before rather than starting from scratch.

I wonder how this would work out in practice then. We do not want cars, they cause greenhouse gases. We also do not want people living close together, because that causes warming also. I suspect that most people would realize that mass transit breaks down as your population density is reduced. The only alternative is for us all to become Amish.

1. Mr. Dan Whitcomb. “Study: California being warmed by urbanization” Yahoo News. 2007-03-28. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070328/us_nm/california_warming_dc
]]> http://www.schierer.org/~luke/log/20070331-0917/further-complexity-in-climate/feed 0 An *Ocean* of water http://www.schierer.org/~luke/log/20070301-0938/an-ocean-of-water http://www.schierer.org/~luke/log/20070301-0938/an-ocean-of-water#comments Thu, 01 Mar 2007 14:38:59 +0000 Luke Schierer http://www.schierer.org/~luke/log/20070301-0938/an-ocean-of-water Yesterday in science news, I read something quite exciting. Scientists have discovered “a vast water reservoir beneath eastern Asia that is at least the volume of the Arctic Ocean.”[1] I cannot believe that this is the only such subterranean water mass. Even if it is the biggest, this marks proof that there could exist substantial amounts of water that we simply do not see. How much have they looked for bodies of water like this? What if the water were even further down, would it show up differently, be harder to detect? All sorts of questions.

One thing is certain though. An ocean’s worth of water is decidedly non-trivial. Even spread around the world, it must be the case that so much water would make at least some difference in the sea level. How much? Could this be a more rational explanation for where some of the water for the Flood came from?

Oh, and I have marked this as “plate tectonics” because that is what the article is concerned with. The idea that this sort of water could help “lubricate” the plates, making it possible for them to move and shift and so on. They could be right. I do not know. Even if they are, I persist in thinking that earthquakes must have other causes. But that is an entirely other topic.

  1. Mr. Ker Than. “Huge ‘Ocean’ Discovered Inside Earth” LiveScience 2007-02-28 http://www.livescience.com/environment/070228_beijing_anomoly.html
]]> http://www.schierer.org/~luke/log/20070301-0938/an-ocean-of-water/feed 0