Tuesday, May 16, 2017


"There is always something to do. There are hungry people to feed, naked people to clothe, sick people to comfort and make well. And while I don't expect you to save the world, I do think it's not asking too much for you to love those with whom you sleep, share the happiness of those whom you call friend, engage those among you who are visionary, and remove from your life those who offer you depression, despair, and disrespect." - Nikki Giovanni

Sunday, May 14, 2017

Turoe Stone




Once a part of the fairy fort called Rath of Feerwore, Turoe stone was moved in the 1850’s to the village of Ballum in the Galloway county in Ireland. The origin of this stone is still being disputed because some scientists believe that France is the country the stone originates from. Its upper part is decorated in La Tène style. La Tène culture flourished on the European soil during the late Iron Age, and it vanished around 1 AD.

The Turoe stone is considered to be one of the finest examples of La Tène stonework decorations in the entire Europe. The reason for the creation of this remarkable stone is not known. Could it be that its purpose is entirely decorative? Did it have a symbolical meaning? The task of answering these questions is on the shoulders of the future generations of researchers. Be it as it may, the people of Ballum are extremely fond of this stone and in 2007 they have refused to move it from its current location in front of Turoe House.

Climate Change Is No More Credible than Magic


by James Delingpole

The evidence for man-made climate change is so flimsy that you might just as well believe in magic.

Richard Lindzen, Alfred P Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, Emeritus at Massachussetts Institute of Technology, has long expressed doubts about the “science” behind anthropogenic global warming theory. (h/t Paul Homewood)

Now, in probably his most comprehensive and devastating assault yet on the Climate Industrial Complex, Lindzen shreds every one of the fake-science arguments used by the environmentalists to justify their hugely expensive “global warming” scare story.

The 97% meme

This is a fabrication designed to make idiots feel like experts. As Lindzen puts it:

The ’97 per cent of scientists believe in global warming’] claim is meant to satisfy the non-expert that he or she has no need to understand the science. Mere agreement with the 97% will indicate that one is a supporter of science and superior to anyone denying disaster. This actually satisfies a psychological need for many people.

But, he explains, it’s just a trick created by pretending that all the scientists who agree that humans make a contribution to global warming (ie almost everyone) also agree with the alarmist theory that global warming is catastrophic, unprecedented and within man’s control. Which simply isn’t the case.

The ‘warmest years on record’ meme

Alarmists have been shrieking a lot recently that most of the hottest years on record – 14 out of 15, according to the UN – have happened since 2000.

This is silly for a number of reasons, Lindzen explains.

Click to enlarge.
First, warmth is not necessarily bad or worrying thing:

It begins with the ridiculous presumption that any warming whatsoever (and, for that matter, any increase in CO2) is bad, and proof of worse to come. We know that neither of these presumptions is true. People retire to the Sun Belt rather than to the arctic. CO2 is pumped into greenhouses to enhance plant growth.

Second, it doesn’t – as some idiots believe – mean that global warming hasn’t paused for the last twenty years.

Of course, if 1998 was the hottest year on record, all the subsequent years will also be among the hottest years on record. None of this contradicts the fact that the warming (ie, the increase of temperature) has ceased.

Third, the differences in temperature are so small as to be almost unmeasurable and are open to all manner of fraudulent adjustments by politically motivated climate gatekeepers.

The extreme weather meme

Sharknadoes & extreme weather!
The idea that we are experiencing more “extreme weather” events because of “climate change” is plain dishonest.

Roger Pielke, Jr. actually wrote a book detailing the fact that there is no trend in virtually any extreme event (including tornados, hurricanes, droughts, floods, etc.) with some actually decreasing. Even the UN’s IPCC acknowledges that there is no basis for attributing such events to anthropogenic climate change.

In fact, its pure propaganda designed to scare the ignorant:

The claims of extreme weather transcend the usual use of misleading claims. They often amount to claims for the exact opposite of what is actually occurring. The object of the claims is simply to be as scary as possible, and if that requires claiming the opposite of the true situation, so be it.

Despite what they say, this is probably not going to happen.
Sea level rise

Not a problem:

Globally averaged sea level appears to have been rising at the rate of about 6 inches a century for thousands of years.

Arctic sea ice

After decreasing in the Arctic for a period and increasing in the Antarctic it now appears to be stabilizing. But so what?

All one can say, at this point, is that the behavior of arctic sea ice represents one of the numerous interesting phenomena that the earth presents us with, and for which neither the understanding nor the needed records exist. It probably pays to note that melting sea ice does not contribute to sea level rise. Moreover, man has long dreamt of the opening of this Northwest Passage. It is curious that it is now viewed with alarm.

Polar bear meme

I suspect that Al Gore undertook considerable focus-group research to determine the remarkable effectiveness of the notion that climate change would endanger polar bears. His use of an obviously photoshopped picture of a pathetic polar bear on an ice float suggests this.

Ocean acidification

This is again one of those obscure claims that sounds scary but doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Ever since the acid rain scare, it has been realized that the public responds with alarm to anything with the word ‘acid’ in it. […]

[…] As usual, there is so much wrong with this claim that it takes a fairly long article to go over it all. I recommend the following source.

Death of coral reefs

Somewhat exaggerated…

The reasoned response to this [alarmist Nature] paper is provided here.

As Steele, the author of the above, points out, bleaching has common causes other than warming and is far from a death sentence for corals whose capacity to recover is substantial. This article is a bit polemical, but essentially correct.

Global warming as the cause of everything

Hardly anyone has the time and energy to deal with the huge number of claims. Fortunately, most are self-evidently absurd. Nation magazine recently came up with what is a bit of a champion is this regard. CO2, it should be noted, is hardly poisonous. On the contrary, it is essential for life on our planet and levels as high as 5000 ppm are considered safe on our submarines and on the space station (current atmospheric levels are around 400 ppm, while, due to our breathing, indoor levels can be much higher). The Nation article is typical in that it makes many bizarre claims in a brief space. It argues that a runaway greenhouse effect on Venus led to temperatures hot enough to melt lead. Of course, no one can claim that the earth is subject to such a runaway, but even on Venus, the hot surface depends primarily on the closeness of Venus to the sun and the existence of a dense sulfuric acid cloud covering the planet. Relatedly, Mars, which also has much more CO2 than the earth, is much further from the sun and very cold. As we have seen many times already, such matters are mere details when one is in the business of scaring the public.

Lindzen’s article is well worth reading in full, not only for the usefulness of its scientific rebuttals but also simply to enjoy the loftiness of the author’s magisterial contempt for the entire field of climate “science.”

It is the exasperated sigh of a hugely intelligent and well-informed scientist absolutely sick to the back teeth of trying to explain the truth about climate change to audiences which have been brainwashed into drooling idiocy.

For over 30 years, I have been giving talks on the science of climate change. When, however, I speak to a non-expert audience, and attempt to explain such matters as climate sensitivity, the relation of global mean temperature anomaly to extreme weather, that warming has decreased profoundly for the past 18 years, etc., it is obvious that the audience’s eyes are glazing over. Although I have presented evidence as to why the issue is not a catastrophe and may likely be beneficial, the response is puzzlement. I am typically asked how this is possible. After all, 97% of scientists agree, several of the hottest years on record have occurred during the past 18 years, all sorts of extremes have become more common, polar bears are disappearing, as is arctic ice, etc. In brief, there is overwhelming evidence of warming, etc. I tend to be surprised that anyone could get away with such sophistry or even downright dishonesty, but it is, unfortunately, the case that this was not evident to many of my listeners.

Lindzen does not even pretend there’s a credible scientific case for the man-made global warming scare theory – because basically there just isn’t one. Believing in this theory, he concludes, is as stupid as believing in magic.

I haven’t spent much time on the details of the science, but there is one thing that should spark skepticism in any intelligent reader. The system we are looking at consists in two turbulent fluids interacting with each other. They are on a rotating planet that is differentially heated by the sun. A vital constituent of the atmospheric component is water in the liquid, solid and vapor phases, and the changes in phase have vast energetic ramifications. The energy budget of this system involves the absorption and reemission of about 200 watts per square meter. Doubling CO2involves a 2% perturbation to this budget. So do minor changes in clouds and other features, and such changes are common. In this complex multifactor system, what is the likelihood of the climate (which, itself, consists in many variables and not just globally averaged temperature anomaly) is controlled by this 2% perturbation in a single variable? Believing this is pretty close to believing in magic. Instead, you are told that it is believing in ‘science.’ Such a claim should be a tip-off that something is amiss. After all, science is a mode of inquiry rather than a belief structure.

Wednesday, May 10, 2017


"Those who are afraid to fight will be eaten by those who are not. Furthermore, I'm hungry."

-- Anonymous Patriot



We Used To Call It Propaganda


The liberal mainstream media continues to peddle its "fake news" narrative practically in desperation. It's dawned on the public that the MSM is the primary purveyor of "fake news"-- mainly in self-referential narratives that support a blatantly slanted agenda with unsupported accusations and suitably anonymous sources. America, you've been scammed.

Many of these Fake News Narratives are laughable, painfully bogus: for example, the press keeps suggesting that President Trump is a Russian tool. (That President Obama was a tool of the neocon Deep State -- no mention of that. According to the MSM, America doesn't even have a Deep State.

But the real danger isn't fake news--it's junk news. Junk News (the title of a 2009 book by an Emmy Award–winning journalist-- Junk News: The Failure of the Media in the 21st Century) --is related to Junk Science and Junk Food.

Junk science is presented as "science" but cherry-picks data to support a specific but unstated agenda--an agenda that requires downplaying or overlooking conflicting data.

Click to enlarge
One common example of junk science is the approval of new medications by the FDA. If you actually dig into Phase III data, you may well find that the "benefits" of the new wonder-drugs are barely above statistical chance, and the potential interactions with commonly prescribed (or imbibed) drugs are ignored.

This is how we end up with medications with deathly side-effects: death from misadventure, addiction, and in combination with other commonly prescribed meds, etc.

For more junk science, check out the UN's declaration on Climate Change. Or, tune into one of Bill Nye's rants where he "schools" reporters on not only climate change but also how there are more than two genders. Bill should stick to proving the boiling point of water.

Junk news is less filling but with more taste!
Junk food is now so ubiquitous we lose sight of its core qualities: it is "food" in the sense of being digestible, but it is harmful above very small, occasional doses. It is not "food" in the context of natural food or healthy food--in those contexts, "junk food" must be placed in parentheses because it doesn't qualify as "food."

It is empty calories, garbage that generates a host of chronic illnesses, but not "food" in the sense of being nutritious, life-supporting or healthy.

Junk news is like junk science -- cherry-picked to support a corporate agenda -- and like junk food in being digestible but toxic. As this brilliant essay explains, the unemployment rate is a premier example of junk news (and junk economics -- a thriving subculture of junk science and junk news. People believe this crap because it gets drilled into them and because it fits a politically-motivated agenda. Mommy, do conspiracies really exist? I'm afraid so, snowflake.

An unemployment rate of 4.7% once meant full employment and rising wages for the laboring class -- but alas, now it is just another ginned-up junk news "statistic" designed to push a bogus narrative: everything is awesome (as the financial security of the bottom 80% swirls the drain).

The key difference between fake news and junk news is plausibility: fake news is innuendo, anonymous sources, and risibly false accusations presented as "fact"; junk news is, like junk science, supported by carefully cherry-picked "data" that has been selected to support the corporate-Deep State narrative being pushed by the corporate mainstream media.

Media junkies on the path to extinction believe the junk news, non-junkies see through the manipulation. If you think it's "progressive" to support war-mongering, neoliberal exploitation and "support our values" social-justice distractions -- sorry, you're a junkie addicted to toxic smack. You're doomed if you can't get the corporate mainstream media monkey off your back.

John 8:43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.

8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

8:45 And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.

8:46 Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me?

8:47 He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.

Monday, May 8, 2017


"You can make ten times more money in one day of war than you can in a whole year of peace." -- the Rothschilds

Making Money from War -- THE HOUSE OF ROTHSCHILD
The World's Banker, 1849-1999
By Niall Ferguson

Sunday, May 7, 2017

She Blinded Me With Science



Life


"Mama, where did I come from?"
"You came from the hospital, dear."

How do we determine what is alive and what isn't? Generally, if it moves, we call "it" alive. If it breathes, if it bleeds, if it eats, if it grows... these are also indications. However, those definitions are not always correct.

Take, for instance, how crystals are formed. A crystal can grow, reach equilibrium, and even move in response to stimuli, but lacks what commonly would be thought of as a biological nervous system. We don't claim that crystals are alive. So how do we determine if something is alive or not?

Doing so is sort of like the ancient Hindu story of identifying an elephant by having each of six blind men touch only the tail, the trunk, or the leg. Each describes something different. A biologist might give a dramatically different answer from that given by a theoretical physicist.

Some agreement is possible. Living things tend to be complex and highly organized. They have the ability to take in energy from the environment and transform it for growth and reproduction. Organisms tend toward homeostasis: an equilibrium of parameters that define their internal environment. Living creatures respond, and their stimulation fosters a reaction-like motion, recoil, and in advanced forms, learning. Life is reproductive, as some kind of copying is needed for the process to repeat itself. To grow and develop, living creatures need to be consumers, since growth includes changing biomass, creating new individuals, and the shedding of waste.

To qualify as a living thing, a creature must meet some variation for all these criteria. For example, a crystal can grow, reach equilibrium, and even move in response to stimuli, but lacks what commonly would be thought of as a biological nervous system.

While a "bright line" definition is needed, the borderline cases give life's definition a distinctly gray and fuzzy quality. In hopes of restricting the working definition (at least here on Earth), all known organisms seem to share a carbon-based chemistry, depend on water, and leave behind fossils with carbon or sulfur isotopes that point to present or past metabolism.

Click to enlarge.
Life is classified among four biological families: archaea, bacteria, eukaryotes, and viruses. Archaea are the recently defined branch that often survives in extreme environments as single cells, and they share traits with both bacteria and eukaryotes. Bacteria, often referred to as prokaryotes, generally lack chlorophyll (except for cyanobacteria) and a cell nucleus, and they ferment and respire to produce energy. The eukaryotes include all organisms whose cells have a nucleus - so humans and all other animals are eukaryotes, as are plants, protists, and fungi. The final grouping includes viruses, which don't have cells at all, but fragments of DNA and RNA that parasitically reproduce when they infect a compatible host cell. These classifications clarify the grand puzzle of existing life, but do little to provide a final definition.

Attempts at definition get even more complicated when extended beyond the Earth's biosphere. The recent addition of extremophiles (archaea) to the tree of life underscores the notion that life is defined by what we know, what we have seen before, and often what we have succeeded in domesticating to a laboratory petri dish.

As revealed by its remarkable biochemical and microbiological similarities, life on Earth has a common origin. Despite this amazing morphological diversity, scientists say terrestrial life represents only a single case.

The medieval alchemists classified many different kinds of substances as water, including nitric acid (which was called "aqua fortis"). They did this because nitric acid exhibited many of the properties of water, and perhaps most importantly, it was a good solvent. It wasn't until the advent of a molecular theory that scientists could understand why nitric acid is not water. And so it goes with definitions for life.

Click to enlarge.
All theories of the origin of life face two major hurdles. The biggest is explaining the origin of the complex cooperative schema worked out between proteins and nucleic acids -- the controlled production of self-replicating catalytic systems of biomolecules. Was it God or was it random chance?

All the scenarios that have been proposed for producing RNA under plausible natural conditions lack experimental demonstration, and this includes the RNA world, clay crystals, and vesicle accounts. No one has been able to synthesize RNA without the help of protein catalysts or nucleic acid templates, and on top of that, there is the fragility of the RNA molecule to contend with.

The more serious problem, however, is the next stage of the process: the coordination of proteins and RNA through a genetic code into a self-replicating catalytic system of molecules. The probability of this happening by chance (given a random mixture of proteins and RNA) is astronomically low. Yet most researchers like to assume that if they can make sense of the independent production of proteins and RNA under natural primordial conditions, the coordination will somehow take care of itself.

The popular theory among academics postulates an initial protein world that eventually produced an RNA world as a by-product of an increasingly sophisticated metabolism. The RNA world, which starts out as an obligatory parasite of the protein world, eventually produces the cooperative schema, and hence life as we know it today. Researchers like this explanation. It's neat, it's easy, and it provides a "scientific" explanation.

Certainly, life arising from nonliving materials could occur elsewhere than Earth, but it could also have occurred on Earth. It is possible that extraterrestrial life exists and that all life nonetheless has a common ancestor. Scientists believe microbes can survive interplanetary journeys ensconced in meteors produced by asteroid impacts on planetary bodies containing life. In other words, we could all be the descendants of Martians.

It is also possible that life on Earth is the product of a very complex historical process that involves too many contingencies to be readily accessible to definitive experimental investigations. So even if we can't produce life in the lab from nonliving materials, it doesn't really follow that we will never know how life originated on Earth.

When we find other lifeforms away from Earth, it will go a long way in determining how we define what is and what is not alive. Indeed, it is exciting to consider the chances of life under the ice of one of Saturn's famous moons, or perhaps discovering and labeling microbes deep within the Earth itself, or floating freely in space.

These are big questions that will not be answered by scientists sitting in an earthly laboratory mixing chemicals and applying electric shocks to a mass of enzymes and proteins. Plus, when we consider that even science has its limitations, we begin to understand that we are bound to a materialistic consideration of these matters. In other words, if God created life, why would He share the process with us anyway?

Wednesday, May 3, 2017

Megafauna: Where Did They Go?


Click to enlarge.
Once upon a time, there were lots of other large animals like the Elephant roaming the earth -- for instance, the Wooly Mammoth. We refer to these extinct creatures as Megafauna. The Megafauna disappeared only recently, in the range of tens of thousands of years, and scientists do not know why. The two main reasons that have been speculated are over-hunting by man and climate change (I know, let's blame it on climate change -- why not a plague or an apocalyptic asteroid strike?). Those who say it may be climate change have very little evidence (like, none) besides claiming that there isn’t enough evidence for the other explanations. As for the over-hunting theory, most scientists say even if it were true, there may be very little archeological evidence. So, the Mystery remains unsolved. What do you think might have happened?

Monday, May 1, 2017

Catch-22


While sitting at home one morning in 1953, Joseph Heller wrote the lines, "It was love at first sight. The first time he saw the chaplain, [Yossarian] fell madly in love with him." Within days, he envisioned the story that would result, and invented the characters, the plot, and the tone that the story would eventually take. Within a week, he finished the first chapter and sent it to his agent. He did not do any more writing for the next year, as he planned the rest of the story. The initial chapter was published in 1955 as "Catch-18", in Issue 7 of New World Writing.

Heller did not intend the story to be longer than a novelette, but was able to add enough substance to the plot that he felt it could become his first novel. When he was a third done with the work, his agent sent it to publishers. Heller was not particularly attached to the work, and decided he would not finish it if publishers were not interested. The work was soon purchased by Simon and Schuster, who gave him $750 and promised an additional $750 when the full manuscript was delivered. Heller missed his deadline by five years but after eight years, he finally delivered the novel to his publisher.

The finished novel describes the wartime experiences of Army Air Corps Captain John Yossarian. Yossarian creates multiple strategies to avoid combat missions, but the military bureaucracy is always able to find a way to make him stay. As Heller observed, "Everyone in my book accuses everyone else of being crazy. Frankly, I think the whole society is nuts – and the question is: What does a sane man do in an insane society?" Heller has also commented that "peace on earth would mean the end of civilization as we know it."

Just before publication, the novel's title was changed to Catch-22 to avoid confusion with Leon Uris' new novel, Mila 18. The novel was published in hardback in 1961 to mixed reviews, with the Chicago Sun-Times calling it "the best American novel in years", while other critics derided it as "disorganized, unreadable, and crass". It sold only 30,000 copies in the United States hardback in its first year of publication. Reaction was different in the UK, where, within one week of its publication, the novel was number one on the bestseller lists. Once it was released in paperback in October 1962, however, Catch-22 caught the imaginations of baby boomers, who identified with the novel's anti-war sentiments. The book went on to sell 10 million copies in the United States. The novel's title became a buzzword for a dilemma with no easy way out. Now considered a classic, Catch-22 was listed at number 7 on Modern Library's list of the top 100 novels of the century. The United States Air Force Academy uses the novel to "help prospective officers recognize the dehumanizing aspects of bureaucracy."

The movie rights to the novel were purchased in 1962, and, combined with his royalties, made Heller a millionaire. The film, which was directed by Mike Nichols and starred Alan Arkin, Jon Voight and Orson Welles, was not released until 1970. In my humble opinion, the movie was not very good.

Are You Sick Of It Yet?


I see where Democrats are still hand-wringing over Hillary Clinton's presidential loss. They say the reason she lost was that her "base" did not turn out to vote and Trump's base did.

With that smug, sterile explanation, they manage to avoid the real answer, which is that Americans turned out at the ballot box because they are sick of big government interference in their lives. The Democratic party is not the sole reason for government largesse but for them to continue to ignore the severe ideological differences between us and them is to ignore reality.

Clinton lost because America is concerned about socialism, tyranny, and leftist fascism. The voting public does not want America to dissolve her borders. America wants the real perpetrators of 9/11 to be revealed and punished. America is sick of war. America is sick of false news spread as propaganda and intended to change their minds.

America is equally sick of political correctness and bullying by leftist rioters, foreign investors, and godless legislators.

Go on, go ahead. Take a survey of middle America and ask what is the most important thing in their lives. They will tell you it is God, family, and country. Not a paycheck.

I mean, haven't you seen enough to convince you yet? Democrats, leftists, progressives, whatever you want to call them, want to get rid of Christianity, or at the very least, turn it into something neither you nor Christ would recognize.

The left continues to riot, burn, and silence their critics. Their actions do not embrace any form of democracy. They are paid grunts working to inflame and blame. Why would anyone in their right mind vote for any of these thugs?

And the Democrat Party leadership continues to beat the socialist, culture -changing drum. The latest revelation from the DNC chair is abortion on demand and the insistence that all Democratic candidates support abortion on demand. Otherwise, they will not be Democrat candidates.

It's a see-through tactic. They're going for the female vote and the right to legally murder and dismember our children. Will they win with their updated, politically correct, communist-driven, tyrannical platform of ideas? No, not unless they rig the election.

These are sick people, man. America must remain vigilant to foreign forces bankrolling these mutants. Those currently in office must be ferreted out and removed from making decisions for other people. The Democratic Party itself needs to be re-tooled to better accommodate the desires of the American voter -- not slanted toward one race or creed -- but rather an ideology that embraces freedom and the principals upon which the country was founded. Democrats currently are more interested in the values of Cuba and other countries where communist despots rule.

Hillary's goal was to be a communist despot. She almost made it, too. Thank God she didn't.