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.  

 

 

 

 

 

Climate Change and Evolution

science banner 2Did you know, science is not based on consensus, rather it is always in a state of flux due to the fact that man’s knowledge is limited. We are students for life, we never come to the point where we can say, “we know it all…” We are not God.

Climate Change and Evolution are based on research that has a pre-ordained conclusion, and has procedures that are considered as hard evidence. Furthermore, both Climate Change and Evolution are funded by various governments around the world while any research outside of those two are not funded, thus artificially building a consensus in order to try to sway public opinion. They do this for various reasons one being that is where the money comes from.

So what happened? During the 70’s and early 80’s, consensus was telling the public that another ice age was coming. In the mid-80’s consensus switched to “global warming then it became known as “climate change” later on. Extreme environmentalism which has a main goal of restoring most of the earth back to the animals, and as a result has become anti-science. There is no environmental group that supports any oil drilling, or mining or anything industrial even though they have benefited from these things.

environmentalismIn California, there is a major water shortage, this is not uncommon but this year it has been worse than normal. California does have a water source that would meet their needs but have embraced special interests who advocate extreme environmentalism. California has the nation’s strictest environmental policies. This includes their water. Last summer it was proposed that California build dams to harvest the water from the melting snow in the mountains.

Environmental groups opposed it saying that the habitat and wildlife need that water, and call for more sweeping conservation measures and water recycling instead. Advocates of more water countered as well…“It is not dams vs. water recycling,” said John Laird, California’s Secretary of Natural Resources. “The water bond, yes, it has the storage, but it also has recycling, conservation and regional water programs. You do all of the above.”

goodwin dam

The proposal to build more dams last summer was interesting because prior to that time, California hasn’t built a new dam in 35 years! The ten biggest water reservoirs in California were built between 1927 and 1979.  One of the reasons the state hasn’t built any new dams is because of its strict environmental laws. But the voters made their voices known in November of 2014, when the majority voted in favor of the proposal to increase water storage.

“Climate Change” advocates have borrowed a lot from those who advocate “evolution”. Their main goal is to get people to believe first rather than just to learn all aspects about it. In 1997, the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) told the media, there is no controversy among scientists about evolution. Also, NCSE president Eugenie Scott said; “It’s not doing the students any service to confuse them about some of the esoteric elements of a scientific discipline.”  

This was followed up in 1998, when National Academy of Sciences stated that evolution is a fact without controversy. They narrowed it down to one particular brand of evolution, which is…random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Even though scientists for over 60 years have never produce life in a lab from dead chemicals, but have invented hypotheses of how self-replicating organisms could form and begin to evolve and normally vote one to be the most popular thus become the most accepted among evolutionary scientists.

In 2007, science reporter Gregg Easterbrook  stated this…“What creates life out of the inanimate compounds that make up living things? No one knows. How were the first organisms assembled? Nature hasn’t given us the slightest hint. If anything, the mystery has deepened over time.” One of the signs that a theory isn’t valid is when it gets more mysterious as time goes on.

Has the controversy ended with evolution? This is not referring to creation vs evolution nor intelligent design vs evolution debates, this refers to something else.  Answering that question is very simple and the answer is…No! They just said that because they don’t want students to learn every aspect about evolution like cutting edge research because it shows many weaknesses in evolution. They want students to be indoctrinated first so their beliefs are firmly entrenched in evolution before they learn those things. What they fear the most are students getting skeptical of evolution when learning the truth about its weakness.

In 2009, Texas science standards were at the center of the debate because every ten years the science standards can either be revised, or can remain unchanged for the next ten years. The main battle was whether or not to keep the “strengths and weaknesses” language for evolution. Those in the National Academy of Science and NCSE camp were fighting to remove “weaknesses” from the language which would set evolution apart from other theories. It was a concern for creationists as well because we wanted that language to stay intact. When word got out that the language was going to be changed, thoughts of indoctrination came to mind. But as it turns out, it was a victory for empirical science  and the language change meant more detail that made the old language even stronger, here is what the new science standard in Texas says…

“In all fields of science, analyze, evaluate and critique scientific explanations by using empirical evidence, logical reasoning, and experimental and observational testing including examining all sides of scientific evidence of those scientific explanations so as to encourage critical thinking by the student.

“Analyze and evaluate the evidence regarding formation of simple organic molecules and their organization into long complex molecules having information such as the DNA molecule for self-replicating life…analyze and evaluate scientific explanations concerning the complexity of the cell.”

McLeroy

Opponents were very upset, it was a tied vote at 7-7 which means the Chairman who was Don McLeroy had the final say on which direction these standards would go, and he voted for the revised science standards. Opponents accused Don McLeroy of being unfit for Chairman, and then used circular reasoning for more accusations such as he didn’t understand evolution because he was a creationist and should never have been Chairman, and these new standards would allow creation in the public schools in Texas but as we know, no such thing happened. The bitterness and absurd accusations have waned for now until those standards are up again for a revision, or be voted to remain the same in 2019.

The accusations were a mere smoke screen, we know that the real intent was to indoctrinate first at the High School level then allow some weaknesses to be taught at the college level. Just like “Climate Change” where it is believed man is responsible for changing the earth’s weather, why do you think “Climategate” happened? It was about swaying public opinion which is why they tried to hide the temperature decline over the past decade. Climate Change and Evolution has hurt scientific research in more ways than one, and has hurt how science should be taught in general.

Next, we are going to tackle a passionate question, how does science detect purpose or intelligence within the creation?  Creationism has a distinct advantage over evolution that doesn’t make it more mysterious than ever rather finds clarity because…:) Stay tuned for the explanation!

Centralizing Science In Public Education

Back in March 2012,  Tennessee State Senate voted 25-8,  which passed an academic freedom bill, SB 893.  This trend was not isolated, other states like Texas in 2009, which 15 member panel omitted the language of students being able to critiquestrengths and weaknesses” of scientific theories, such as evolution, inserted into the science standards a requisite for students to critically analyze and evaluate “all sides of scientific evidence” which was even better language to have the students follow than before!

Texas Science Standards since 2009, go by this philosophy…

“In all fields of science, analyze, evaluate, and critique scientific explanations by using empirical evidence, logical reasoning, and experimental observation and testing, including examining all sides of scientific evidence of those explanations so as to encourage critical thinking by the students.”

Opponents for academic freedom were shocked and dismayed because they are very concerned about how creationists and intelligent design proponents expose Darwinian evolution’s weaknesses. But isn’t analyzing and evaluating what science is all about? Yes, in most other theories this is a common practice, but not Darwinian evolution nor climate change as we will get into further detail in just a moment.

Other states like Mississippi and Louisiana, have passed their versions of the academic freedom bill for teachers and students to discuss scientific evidence critical to Darwinism.  Seven states in total, so with these major loses (but not for science) the opposition has embraced centralizing science into their fold of standards rather than leaving up to the states to decide.

In world magazine, James Devine writes…

“As kindergartners and high-school students return to public schools this fall, a team of 41 writers will be busy editing national curriculum standards that, as early as next year, could change how science teachers instruct their classes. The so-called “Next Generation Science Standards,” which all 50 states will have the option of adopting or not, are intended to provide a universal framework for science education. They explicitly emphasize Darwinism and climate change.”

So not only do opponents of academic freedom want teachers to indoctrinate evolution to the students but also have teachers indoctrinate students with the view that man is solely responsible for any warming trend that is currently happened or happening on the planet in modern times.

However, there has been interesting publications about climate change in the last couple of years, even last week. For example, in the Journal of Science, Luke Skinner in his article, “A Long View on Climate Change” writes about political ramifications using short-term graphs, he draws his reader’s attention using evolution’s time frame that several major climate swings over long periods before humans appeared in the standard geological timeline.  He then questions scientists’ ability for understanding all what goes on like the mechanisms and the uncertainties in proxy estimates; for instance, what factors are nonlinear?

He writes…

“If the goal of climate science is not just to predict the next 50 to 100 years of climate change, but also ‘to tackle the more general question of climate maintenance and sensitivity’, then arguably we must do so within a conceptual framework that augments the notion of climate sensitivity as a straightforward linear calibration of climate gain, with the possibility of nonlinear feedbacks and irreversible transitions in the climate system,” he explained.”  

“An exclusive consideration of the highest (e.g., decadal) register of climate variability might be adequate for most political time frames and may suit the urgency of immediate mitigation and adaptation challenges,” he ended. “However, it falls short of the wider scientific challenge that faces humanity, as well as a moral horizon that extends much farther into the future.”

A few days ago in Nature,  five scientists were critical of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which is where the opponents of academic freedom rely on to make a case for centralizing a certain viewpoint about climate change to the students.

“This IPCC-like focus might be attractive to ‘elite actors’, from natural scientists to national governments, but it omits many other important stakeholders and knowledge-holders, including indigenous people, businesses, farmers, community partnerships and fishers,” they said.  “What counts as legitimate knowledge, and how it is generated, influences its practical effectiveness.”

Switching gears now to Darwinian evolution, where not even other natural causes cannot be considered under this “Next Generation Science Standards” because they fear it might lead them to creationism or intelligent design. Which is interesting considering, in a 2008 poll where it discovered only a quarter of public high-school biology teachers claim to be strong advocates of Darwinism. This is another reason opponents of academic freedom want centralization of science standards. If these centralized science standards get passed by the states it will then supercede existing state laws on science standards.

Totalitarianism in the form of centralization of public school science standards would be disastrous! Rather these things belong on the local level where has been for so many years. The proposed national standards reflect another push by leftist elitists to squelch independent thinking and force the unwashed masses into uncritical acceptance or in another words, blind faith.

The states who refuse to pass such standards may be pressured into it by federal money being withheld, perhaps some Universities will not accept students from those states.  A requisite for students to critically analyze and evaluate “all sides of scientific evidence” is what science is all about!  

ClimateGate: What We Have Learned

In 2009, 1073 e-mails, attachments and files were posted anonymous on the internet. It didn’t take long, word spread like wildfire as thousands of people began downloading the documents. The material revealed communications  between an elite group of climate scientists and paloeclimatologists which were instrumental in influencing the IPCC’s view on climate change.

These communications also revealed how these elite scientists were hiding data, suppressing dissent by influencing journals not to publish papers contrary to their position thus using it to claim the science is settled on this issue when in fact it was not. Then  Freedom of Information requests came in, rather than turnover their raw data, they conspired to delete their emails and even one scientist wanted to delete all the climate data rather than turn it over and by the way, the climate data is still missing today.

Some Background

The need to sway government policies as well as public viewpoints around the world was needed according to those who believed in man-made global warming. In order to educate them into their way of thinking, one of these elite scientists (Mike Mann) came up with the now famous “hockey stick” graph was introduced to the world in 2001, which suggests that global temperatures remained virtually unchanged for centuries (denying that warming and cooling occurred historically), then shot up in the last few decades. This was implying that man was responsible for the warming. It became part of the U.N.’s 200l climate report and used for evidence.

Not only that, in order to give the graph some hard evidence, tree rings from Yamal, Russia was used by Keith Briffa from the CRU. Also, temperature reconstructions was claimed to be the hard evidence to back-up the graph. But for ten years Mike Mann and others refused to release the rest of the data in which they were basing their claim. When it comes to various scientific research, you generally release your raw data upon request so others can either verify or disprove your hypothesis. So what was going behind the scenes that Mike Mann and others would refuse such requests about their research?

Working Behind The Scenes

Tom Wigley from CRU, to Michael Mann on June 25, 2009. Mike was very concern about being called to testify at a Congressional hearing organized by the Chairs of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations about man-made global warming skeptics Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick’s who challenged the hockey stick science.

Tom Wigley writes

“A word of warning. I would be careful about using other, independent paleo reconstruction work as supporting the MBH   reconstructions. I am attaching my version of a comparison of the bulk of these other reconstructions. Although these all show the hockey stick shape, the differences between them prior to 1850 make me very nervous.”

“If I were on the greenhouse deniers’ side, I would be inclined to focus on the wide range of paleo results and the differences between them as an argument for dismissing them all. I attach also a run with MAGICC using central-estimate climate nmodel parameters (DT2x = 2.6 degC, etc.—see the TAR), and forcings used by Caspar in the runs with paleo-CSM. I have another Figure somewhere that compares MAGICC with paleo-CSM. The agreement is nearly perfect (given that CSM has internally generated noise while MAGICC is pure signal). The support for the hockey stick is not just the paleo reconstructions, but also the model results. If one takes the best estimates of past forcing off the shelf, then the model results show the hockey stick shape.”

Not only was he nervous when the data wasn’t showing what he wanted to believe in, Tom Wigley restored to this particular tactic as he makes this stunning admission of what he did when writing to Phil Jones on September 27th 2009…

“I am fudging the data to take out as much of the ocean warming as I can. I can’t take out all of it, because then we would have no explanation for the land warming, which would raise suspicions. But even with my fudge factor, we still don’t have a convincing explanation for why the ocean warmed during this period.”

In another email dated in October 2009 by Tom Wigley to author of the hockey stick science, Mike Mann…

“The figure you sent [from Gavin Schmidt] is very deceptive, As an example, historical runs with PCM (Parallel Climate Model) look as though they match observationsbut the match is a fluke. PCM has no indirect aerosol forcing and a low climate sensitivity — compensating errors. In my (perhaps too harsh) view, there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by [the U.N. climate panel].”

Panel Agrees To Reforms: Updated 5-29-2011

The email leakage were not the only things that caused a major loss of confidence with scientists backing man-made global warming, also errors like the rate of the Himalayan glacier melting.

In this month’s Nature News

“After months of soul-searching, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has agreed on reforms intended to restore confidence in its integrity and its assessments of climate science…”

“A new conflict-of-interest policy will require all IPCC officials and authors to disclose financial and other interests relevant to their work (Pachauri had been harshly criticized in 2009 for alleged conflicts of interest.) The meeting also adopted a detailed protocol for addressing errors in existing and future IPCC reports, along with guidelines to ensure that descriptions of scientific uncertainties remain consistent across reports. “This is a heartening and encouraging outcome of the review we started one year ago,” Pachauri told Nature. “It will strengthen the IPCC and help restore public trust in the climate sciences.”

“The first major test of these changes will be towards the end of this year, with the release of a report assessing whether climate change is increasing the likelihood of extreme weather events. Despite much speculation, there is scant scientific evidence for such a link — particularly between climate warming, storm frequency and economic losses — and the report is expected to spark renewed controversy. “It’ll be interesting to see how the IPCC will handle this hot potato where stakes are high but solid peer-reviewed results are few,” says Silke Beck, a policy expert at the Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research in Leipzig, Germany.”

In conclusion

What we have learned is a small group of elite scientists got caught with their hand in the cookie jar. We have also learned how very intelligent people hold to their bias so much, it doesn’t matter what the evidence says, only what they believe and want the public to believe in. We have to remember, scientists are only humans, some make common mistakes while others like Mike Mann, Phil Jones and Tom Wigley with their hockey stick science are outright liars!

Climategate One Year Later

One of the most revealing documents ever released on how certain scientists who were manipulating data in favor of their conclusions about man-made climate change. Many proponents have been in damage control ever since trying to downplay the significance of those documents…

“What are the impacts from Climategate one year later?  The scientific data continues to build conclusively proving that the Earth is warming. Just today, the National Climatic Data Center based in Asheville, NC confirmed that 2010 is already tied with 1998 as the warmest year on record based on date from January through October 2010.  When the final two months of the year are computed, 2010 may emerge as the uncontested ‘winner.”

So there you have it, after 10 years of a cooling period, 2010 may be one of the warmest, conclusive evidence that man is the cause, right? Not exactly…If the evidence is so overwhelming then why was there a climategate in the first place?

Also, why was there a willingness to destroy information rather than release it under the British Freedom of Information (FOI) law and the intimidation of publications willing to publish skeptical articles if climate change was caused by man? The mainstream media practically avoided covering the story. There has only been since the documents were leaked to the public a year ago, twelve stories. Instead of reporting the news, their beliefs were injected into the stories, for example, Last December, Anne Thompson cited “experts” to bolster global warming science, saying “They say it doesn’t matter what’s in those emails. The Earth is changing.” So committed fraud by hiding “the decline,” evading government laws or trying to keep skeptics from being published didn’t matter to the mainstream media, which had been producing story after story for years about the supposed threat of climate change.

Some other errors were discovered as well last year, such as the Himalayan glaciers were going to disappear in 2035 which was used as climate-change evidence, rather than in 2350—an error drawn to the public’s attention not by a newspaper or a “skeptic” blogger but ….by an IPCC author.

Despite damage control in full mode, the public at large has become even more skeptical of the cause of climate-change, historically before cars were invented places like Greenland went through a warming period, (that’s how it got it’s name) then started to go through a cooling period where the Vikings who settled there had to leave. So when there are fluctuations in temperatures, it’s not proof in itself that man is the cause. Computer models are not conclusive evidence either.

What we learned from climategate is, proponents want to restore much of the earth back to the animals, and treat man like a disease that needs to stop spreading. We also learned that scientists will manipulate the data even more so now because their allies have cleared them and no punishment happened as a result.

Misc Science Topics In the News

A while back, a reader was making an argument for very long distance space travel via-wormholes. The assertion here was the fact that space travel of that level would require an pretty enormous amount of energy that would equal millions upon millions of nuclear explosions over many years, thus not realistically possible to obtain.

Space.com also makes a similar case in it’s article…”Warp Speed Will Kill You”

“There are just two hydrogen atoms per cubic centimeter on average in space, which poses no threat to spaceships traveling at low speeds. But those same lone atoms would transform into deadly galactic space mines for a spaceship that runs into them at near-light speed, according to calculations based on Einstein’s special theory of relativity.”

What about the Star Trek solution using shields?  A vast amount of  energy over long periods of time would also be required which makes this kind of space travel all the more impractical. If one thinks of the occult which has stories of transporting physical objects by disappearing in one location then appearing in another (sort of like beam me up Scotty) then it’s quite possible to obtain such long distances at fast speeds.

Global Warming Alarmists team up with Evolutionists to oppose New Bill…

New York Times reports with their spin…

“In Kentucky, a bill recently introduced in the Legislature would encourage teachers to discuss “the advantages and disadvantages of scientific theories,” including “evolution, the origins of life, global warming and human cloning.”

“The bill, which has yet to be voted on, is patterned on even more aggressive efforts in other states to fuse such issues. In Louisiana, a law passed in 2008 says the state board of education may assist teachers in promoting “critical thinking” on all of those subjects.”

One of the things the liberal scientific establishment hates (which also goes for man-made climate change) the most is teaching and practicing critical thinking. This concept is generally accepted for conservative viewpoints but not for their own especially if the conclusions are outside evolutionary thinking or man-made global warming. Biochemist, author and intelligent design advocate, Michael Behe’s colleague, pro-evolutionist Prof. Steven Goldman once said back in 2006, pointing out some flaws in the scientific community in regards to the discovery of RNA which was opposed by the majority of that time, said the public still must follow them.

Sound a bit religious and blind faith? There was a huge uproar for awhile over Louisiana’s  “critical thinking”  law claiming it’s all about casting doubt on evolution. After the bill passed some special interests advocated the governor will be impeached.

We know scientific consensus can be tampered with as climate gate has plainly shown. The requested information which was by the law was violated which eventually lead to the leak. It was hard at first for the mainstream media to be critical of the research of man-made global warming as the result of the leaked e-mails in climate gate. But not for the BBC which before was a huge proponent of man-made global warming…For the first time it began to question it with real observations rather than computer simulations,For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.” Climate gate opened a lot of eyes to the scientific establishment which can also be as greedy as some big businesses.

Fruit Flies and Design

Remember Sarah Palin on fruit flies? She was blasted by special interests as being anti-science for opposing such research at least in the short term as the country was going through a recession. Granted fruit fly research is valuable as it can lead to treatments of disabilities like muscular dystrophy.  Some new research has come out and it’s very interesting.

In science daily

“Scientists at the University of California, San Diego School of Medicine, have identified a protein called Sestrin that serves as a natural inhibitor of aging and age-related pathologies in fruit flies. They also showed that Sestrin, whose structure and biochemical function are conserved between flies and humans, is needed for regulation of a signaling pathway that is the central controller of aging and metabolism.”

Also, fruit flies can out perform bodybuilders by not double but triple the amount. Fruit flies have muscles that are among the strongest in the animal kingdom. Their eye sight is incredible as well…“This simple insect can achieve sophisticated color discrimination and detect a broader spectrum of colors than we can, especially in the UV” It is interesting to note that humans share some of the same genes with fruit flies.

When one approaches this with creationism in mind, we know it’s an advanced design that needs to be understood even further and use it for the benefit of mankind. 

Scientific Consensus Goes Into New Territory

The world is observing something unprecedented. Within a few short months the international scientific consensus has unraveled! It began with hacked e-mails being leaked over the internet which became known as “climategate.”

Science daily reported…

“Public concern about global warming has dropped sharply since the fall of 2008, according to the results of a national survey released January 27 by researchers at Yale and George Mason universities…Only 50 percent of Americans now say they are “somewhat” or “very worried” about global warming, a 13-point decrease.”

The University where “climategate” began and provided damaging evidence that the hacked documents revealed. They  were found to have breached the terms of the freedom of information act.

The BBC reported…

“In a statement, Deputy Information Commissioner Graham Smith said it was an offence under section 77 of the Freedom of Information act “to prevent intentionally the disclosure of requested information”. He said the requests were made by a climate change sceptic in the 2007-2008 period and as the case was more than six months old “the opportunity to consider a prosecution was long gone” under existing legislation.”

The article admitted which is new territory within itself, that the University of East Anglia had damaged public interest by withholding information. What’s even more interesting, the mainstream media which advocated global warming has been publishing more skeptical articles, for example in Science Daily

“Glaciologists at the Laboratory for Space Studies in Geophysics and Oceanography (LEGOS — CNRS/CNES/IRD/Université Toulouse 3) and their US and Canadian colleagues (1) have shown that previous studies have largely overestimated mass loss from Alaskan glaciers over the past 40 years. Recent data from the SPOT 5 and ASTER satellites have enabled researchers to extensively map mass loss in these glaciers, which contributed 0.12 mm/year to sea-level rise between 1962 and 2006, rather than 0.17 mm/year as previously estimated.”

And one of the most critical pieces that questions what scientists really know was previously unheard of a few months ago…

“The notion that scientists understand how changes in Earth’s orbit affect climate well enough for estimating long-term natural climate trends that underlie any anthropogenic climate change is challenged by findings just published.”

More unraveling includes the Himalayan glaciers where the IPCC claimed the glaciers would disappear by 2035. It took two months after the chairman was informed to correct it. The chairman alluded to his busy schedule for his slowness. This is not all, in another story

“IPCC experts calculated that 55 percent of the Netherlands was below sea level by adding the area below sea level — 26 percent — to the area threatened by river flooding — 29 percent — Vallaart said…Correcting the error had been “on the agenda several times” but had never actually happened, Vallaart said.

Was the IPCC too busy to correct this problem too? Not even a well known science journal believes that! In fact, they have a their own take on it which called for integrity in science!

Another error in IPCC studies claims that global warming could cut rain fed north African crop production by up to 50% by 2020. A remarkable change in such a short period of time. But Professor Chris Field, says there is no evidence to support such a claim and he is right.

What is all this telling us about global warming and practicing science? How reliable is the scientific consensus? Who polices them? There is a wider disconnect between big science and the public at large. Also, more papers challenging man-made global warming are being published and the consensus itself is being looked at much closer than ever before. What we are observing is so unprecedented and so refreshing!