The Reality of Climate Change

A Canadian scientist @KHayhoe who helped write the fairly recent climate report is visibly “frustrated” these days because what President Trump said about man-made global warming where he agreed with some of it, and flat-out disagreed about its predictions. While criticizing the report for being unfair to the US in particular while not involving other nations who pollute a lot more. The President went on to say that we are the cleanest we ever been. Emissions in the US has been decreasing. It decreased roughly by 3 percent last year. Moreover, CO2 levels worldwide haven’t been increasing either, its been flat for the last 3 years. To disagree with the report according to Katharine Hayhoe is like denying the existence of gravity which many mainstream creationists have heard this argument before involving evolution. So they are using the same argument but for a different issue.

Now before I go any further, I want to explain something, this is not a normal topic because the goal of this blog is to focus more on creationism and evolution along with new discoveries in science but since there are similarities in how some Scientists get so caught up in a particular narrative which we have seen in various explanations of evolution vs observations instead of allowing the evidence to lead, this topic gets addressed from time to time. Let’s begin…

Those of us who are old enough or those who younger but have read some history in this area might know that there was a little ice-age that would eventually doom mankind which began around the late 1880s when records of the weather began to be kept on a regular basis and used today. Then a shift occurred in the early 1980s to a belief in man-made global warming which was later renamed as “climate change” as we know it today. Scientists who believe in man-made climate change argue for a fixed climate. Historically, the weather has changed, there have been three major warming periods for example which happened long before the industrial era. The earth also has experienced cooling periods before the industrial era. This means the climate is a complex system that is changing and will change in the future. To try to change that to a “fixed climate” is not logical.

Like similar reports before it, this one paints a picture of the demise of the human race, economically, health and safety. Historically civilizations have done better under the warming periods than in cooling periods. Not only that but vegetation also does better in warming periods than in cooling periods. Vegetation also does better with a higher level of CO2. If you ever have visited a commercial greenhouse, the concentration of CO2 is generally 4X higher inside than in the surrounding environment on the outside. Why? Because the plants grow better, produce better. When the plants grow better they tend to absorb the CO2 as food then in return, the plants produce more oxygen for the environment! If you look at the condition of plants over the last 30 years or so you will notice that the earth has become greener as a result of more CO2. If we get rid of CO2, plants would decrease and eventually die which means life would cease. Of course, it is not possible to get rid of all the CO2 on earth. Right now fossil fuels are the most efficient way of creating energy for human consumption. It’s doubtful that it will change anytime soon, however, alternative energy isn’t a bad idea and may have more of an impact many years down the road but there are problems with cost, innovation, the market, all of which, restrict its possible potential, and even with this potential it still isn’t enough to replace fossil fuels entirely. I’ll go more into later on in another post on this issue sometime in the future. 

Another factor often times overlooked in these reports is water vapor which is a major greenhouse gas. Why are scientists who believe in climate change not concerned about water vapor? Because lawmakers cannot regulate it in order to control people’s behavior in its use! What about fires like in California? Aren’t they increasing because of man-made global warming? This, in general, has been mentioned in this recent report and often pointed out by man-made global warming advocates. In the 1920s and 1930s, there were way more wildfires in the United States which burned a lot longer and burned more land than today. Why? It is simple, fewer people and better technology! There weren’t as many people to fight those fires, and getting water to the fires was much more difficult back then as they didn’t have things like airplanes or helicopters to dump tons of water on the fires.  Transporting people in general to the fires or out of the fires is much easier today compared to back then. Since it wasn’t plausible to fight a fire with water due to the lack of means, instead, people had to make firebreaks and wait for the fire to burn itself out! So wildfires are not burning as much as they did in the past! However, there is a connection with forest management and wildfires! No connection with man-made global warming and wildfires!

What about the ice-caps melting causing a massive increase in the sea level and the polar bears starving? The ice-caps show the earth’s weather doesn’t act as one unit. The North pole has been decreasing while the South Pole’s ice has been increasing in the last 20 years. Icebergs are different in the South than in the North. Air circulation is different and other factors make them different thus the ice is affected differently. This in itself doesn’t prove man caused it to happen. Polar bears are another animal, the population of polar bears has increased over the years so much so that they wander into settled areas looking for food. A reduction in population would promote a healthier population much like they do with certain animals in the United States.

In conclusion, the recent report like other reports before it is geared toward trying to motivate people for action within a certain narrative. Money is also a factor, universities get more funding based on embracing man-made global warming. For example, there were not global warming skeptics who were allowed to contribute to the recent report. Usually, governments do not allow funding for skeptics so naturally, you’re going to discover more research papers that are for this issue rather than against it. And professors that may question man-made global warming are often censored in the public schools from giving students another side of the argument. The only fear that they have is the gravy train along with other political issues might be affected if the public doesn’t go along with their narrative of promoting a fixed climate. There is no hard evidence that man causes weather changes nor can fix them to the desired level that certain scientists feel comfortable about. The earth’s weather made changes in the past and will do so in the future as the Lord will’s it.  

 

 

 

 

 

Consensus Hinders Science

We have heard the claim that most scientists agree, take Darwinism as an example, if most scientists agree, that it is a fact.

“the scientific theory of evolution is accepted by mainstream scientists around the world as the cornerstone of biology and the single, unifying explanation for the diversity of life on earth and is, therefore, beyond question.”

When consensus talks, it’s like the Pope talking in regards to Scripture. But there is a major problem with this philosophy. In 1961, the American Heart Association came out with a study that suggested a low-fat diet prevents heart disease while a high-fat diet causes it.  Consensus spoke, it was “beyond question” so for a period of time no clinical trials were conducted to test its conclusion! It basically became the law of the land. 

However, there were attempts for clinical trials, but when the evidence from these trials was contrary to the consensus, researchers decided to put an end to the research! The researchers also made a decision to not publish their findings for 16 years! It would be like a creation scientist researching the Ica Stones and testing them for which have been complicating evolutionists for years because these rocks contain very clear dinosaurian representations. The reason why it complicates evolution is that these drawings from pre-Colombian cultures would falsify the belief that dinosaurs were not around when man roamed the earth. There is controversy because the stones were not discovered by the experts. However, one can test to know where or not the stones are what they are from the past or if they are some modern drawings.  So far no such test has been done on the stones, evolutionists would be hard press to conduct one, instead, some sit back and claim consensus. 

It was the same with soft tissue from ancient animals which evolutionist claim was impossible before 2007. While they are right about the preservation part of the organic material, they are anti-science when soft tissue from a dinosaur was discovered by accident by one of their experts so they eventually had to accept its existence but when it came to the reality that soft tissue is not millions of years old, like how they treated the human diet, and the drawings from the pre-Colombian cultures, they bury the evidence in order to keep their narrative. Because organic material degrades very quickly. This a fact. And if evolution couldn’t have happened slowly, there is no evolution. Therefore, the denial.

Consensus has done a better job of keeping most of the research in a box concerning evolution, but it hasn’t been as successful with the human diet. Last year in 2017 a study which has caught the attention of some people in the United States was published in an “open access” medical journal called, “The Lancet report” on the initial findings of the Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology.” The largest of its kind across 18 countries which included 135,000 people total.  

Most mainstream nutritionists including one that I had a conversation with about my health a couple of years ago, suggested intake of more carbs while reducing meat, and dairy intake and so on. In other words a low-fat diet. However, this new study discovered that people with low-fat diets had a higher risk of heart disease than those with a lower carb diet confirming other studies that were buried during the late 60’s and early 70’s. 

Also…

“Benefits of fruit, vegetable and legume consumption appear to be at a maximum for both non-cardiovascular mortality and total mortality at three to four servings per day (equivalent to 375–500 g/day).”

Getting the human diet right is very critical because every 40 seconds someone in the United States has a heart attack! Of course, it is not the only component because heredity also plays a key role in heart disease along with lifestyles like smoking or not non-smoking.

Consensus has failed to follow standard science research protocol, strictly going by proper research procedures, and lack of replication. This mess is compounded by the fact that once an idea becomes popular within the mainstream, it becomes near impossible to overturn along with countless millions of dollars to preserve its narrative. There is a reason why consensus has failed science. Consensus protects certain beliefs in science by not allowing anyone to think outside the box.

It’s beyond question that consensus has hindered scientific research along with a need for change!  This will help improve science for the better!

The Joys of Discoveries In A Young Solar System

In the vast and cold region of the solar system lies a dwarf Planet called “Pluto.” Some scientists have claimed it was dead, frozen out for many millions upon millions of years. New Horizons was a mission that was supposed to shed light on the origin of the solar system but instead has discovered some very young characteristics from the dwarf planet which complies a vast wealth of complexity within the old age framework.

Sand dunes are usually found in deserts where the wind blows the same around making some cool hills and more. Most wouldn’t think of sand dunes being present on Pluto. Even yours truly wouldn’t have thought of that even though it was predicted that young activity would be discovered on Pluto and beyond. That is exactly what New Horizons discovered as it flew by Pluto. 

Pluto's Sand Dunes

In Nature…“Dramatic dunes of methane sweep across part of Pluto. The discovery shows that the dwarf planet’s atmosphere, although thin, can still generate winds powerful enough to blow particles across the surface.”

“The dunes probably formed in the past 500,000 years — which means Pluto is a geologically active world.”

This presents a major problem for planetary evolutionists who believe in billions of years. Because if these winds have been active for many millions upon millions of years, wouldn’t the process eventually stop? Scientists believe Pluto’s atmosphere is escaping.

In Science, they speculate on an answer…“The methane grains could have been lofted into the atmosphere by the melting of surrounding nitrogen ice or blown down from nearby mountains. Understanding how dunes form under Pluto conditions will help with interpreting similar features found elsewhere in the solar system.”

 Young solar systems are active and old ones are not active because eventually, they lose energy and freeze out especially being so far away from the sun! It would be really cool if someday we could land a robot on Pluto (similar to that of Mars) which would be able to study the surface in much more detail. How many more surprises concerning Pluto’s activity would be discovered? My guess, quite a few more! 

Ceres as seen by DAWN

New Horizons is not done yet, on January 2019, the spacecraft is set to encounter another Kuiper belt object which again is believed to be composed largely of frozen volatiles like methane and water. My prediction, this objective will reveal some youthful surprise! Don’t forget that the spacecraft Dawn has flown down to it’s the closest point of Ceres and is now collecting data to be later transmitted back to Earth.  We are living in some of the most exciting times when it comes to space exploration! 

The Joys of a Youthful Dwarf Planet

When a woman is pregnant she can feel the energy of the child from the womb when born and growing up, children display a lot of energy because of their youth. In space exploration, we can expect to see an active solar system because it’s not billions of years old. If the solar system was billions of years old, activity on Pluto, for example, would be completely dead by now. 

Back in 2007, the Dawn space probe was launched by NASA with a mission to study three dwarf planets but later on, NASA decided to narrow it down to just two. Since then, the mission has completely contradicted billions of years old which have shocked some planetary scientists who are working on the mission. 

“Changes in the abundance of water ice on a short timescale, as well as the presence of hydrated sodium carbonates, are further evidence that Ceres is a geologically and chemically active body,” said Cristina De Sanctis, VIR team leader at the Institute of Astrophysics and Planetary Science.” 

Ceres Dwarf Planet

What scientists have discovered was rapid geological changes and these rapid geological changes did not happen 100 years ago, nor 5 years ago nor 1 year ago, rather the space probe was able to detect the changes within 6 months! Do you know how cold it is in space? Do you know how long your coffee would stay warm if let it sit outside in freezing weather? Not long, right?

Now think of Ceres which is basically an asteroid which is smaller than Pluto, sitting out there in space which is very cold. One would think after billions of years that Ceres would be frozen out by now with no activity, right? Of course! Just like the coffee in freezing weather, there would be no reason to assume that the coffee would stay warm for many years after being exposed to cold weather for that long! Those who believe in the billions of years age would assume that as well and rightly so. But their assumptions about how old the solar system is, are in direct conflict with what is really going on in the solar system! 

So how did the scientists maintain the billions of years with Ceres? The answer, they didn’t, however, they came up with some imaginary estimates based on millions of years instead which falls way short of the billions of years in which they believe.  

But it’s not in conflict with creationism, rather it confirms it!