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.  

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

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. 

The Media’s And Mayor’s Debacle On The Claims Of Ida

Last year there was media-frenzied presentation of Ida which captivated the mayor of NY who revealed the specimen at a press conference. The history channel already had a documentary waiting in the wings. Sky News said this…This little creature is going to show us our connection with the rest of the mammals,” he said. “This is the one that connects us directly with them. “Now people can say ‘okay we are primates, show us the link’. “The link they would have said up to now is missing – well it’s no longer missing.”

However not all were convinced that Ida was a distant relative of humans while others believed that future science would fill in the gaps which is very common in evolutionary thinking. Some pro-evolutionists began to call this hype as “shoddy scholarship” and live science had published very critical pieces on Ida.

So-called ‘missing links’ are hyped for a reason, it’s a money maker and it draws interest to the evolutionary side. In this case, the hype and so-called ‘evidence’ was disproved again as science daily reports…

“In an article now available online in the Journal of Human Evolution, four scientists present evidence that the 47-million-year-old Darwinius masillae is not a haplorhine primate like humans, apes and monkeys, as the 2009 research claimed.”

“They also note that the article on Darwinius published last year in the journal PLoS ONE ignores two decades of published research showing that similar fossils are actually strepsirrhines, the primate group that includes lemurs and lorises.”

Ida had nothing to do with human evolution despite all the hype from the media and some scientists. Ida has nothing to do with evolution in general. Ida was a well created animal with variations within primates that existed. Show us the evidence we say and here’s how they go about doing it…

It was noted for it’s exceptional preservation and it’s shady past. In 1983, the fossil was discovered in a private collection and split into two halves. A Wyoming fossil collector had dressed it up to make it look complete said science daily. As for the other half, it stood on a German collector’s wall till 2006 which later fell into the hands of a private fossil dealer who presented it at a trade show. One million dollars was raised to obtain it which is ten times the normal price for rare fossils.

Even though the Ida claims have been put to rest you still see fudging going on by this latest research by referring to a what I call an attempt to rescue their hypothesis known as convergent evolution. They said certain traits are “known to have evolved multiple times among primates, including several times within the lemur/loris lineage.” Known? Are they willing to swear they are telling the truth and nothing but the truth rather than just speculating?

Random Evolutionary Research: Strange to Bizarre

Biologists at Rice University proposed a new method which views organisms in light of organization rather than the structure of their parts.  They concluded based on a pattern that animals were designed with a purpose!  This is actually a good method but the interpretation of the origin in evolutionary circles remains a conflict.

What they conceptualize makes it really strange. A technical report published in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, stated, “All organisms originated from groups of simpler units that now show high cooperation among the parts and are nearly free of conflicts.” How did a non-propose natural process create organisms and then create propose as they got more complex? For example, honeybee colonies (which is similar to man-made cities) work together for an overall purpose with a maximum amount of cooperation with minimum conflict. Basically they are trying to re-define “purpose” without needing intelligence to accomplish it. While the method could be of value for creationism, the conclusion in evolutionary circles is strange nevertheless…Speaking of strange it gets more bizarre…

Another hypothesis advocating purpose which was published in New Scientist, “Early birds may have dropped teeth to get airborne.” Talk about almost falling out of your seat, because of laughing so hard! Speculation running ramped here, 20 million years after the first bird, the animals went toothless so they could fly according to Chinese researchers. Teeth have little if nothing to do with air balance. And again, what mechanism decided to lose their teeth? The goofy things New Scientist decides to publish without much of a challenge to such foolishness in science research.

“They discovered Zhongjianornis yangi, a toothless bird from 122 million years ago in China’s Liaoning province. Their analysis shows that Z. yangi belonged to one of four bird groups that independently lost their teeth, implying that this loss was no evolutionary fluke. Z. yangi‘s group is the most primitive among them, suggesting it could provide clues as to why tooth loss occurred.”

If one theory is as good as any other, is it also as bad as any other? Now on to another bizarre research in the evolutionary realm, miraculous meteorites are claimed to have started, “oxygenic photosynthesis.” Yep, one of the most complex mechanisms one can find in the living world. Same MO, starts of as an accident then becomes purposeful…It’s interesting to note, this research got $867,000 from the National Science Foundation. Waste of money which could have been used for fighting diseases.

Evolutionary research has been strange with it’s storytelling but the more they see design with purpose the more bizarre they get in explanations, what we actually observe in nature is intelligence with a purpose namely, God!

Ardi Replaces Lucy, The Australopithecine

Ardi who’s bones are in extremely in bad condition (crushed nearly to smithereens) has finally taken center stage after 15 years of trying to piece it all  together.  Science published not three, not ten but sixteen articles on this particular fossil! Wasn’t Lucy suppose to settle all this back in the 1970s? It appears now they are telling us Lucy was on separate branches which had nothing to do with us after all, but now we have Ardi.

This fossil has been used to create a new paradigm which changes the mechanism of evolution itself.  In classical neo-Darwinism, traits evolve in a stepwise fashion through mutations and natural selection.  However, more scientists are now embracing the idea of  “adaptive suites” which advocates groups of traits that emerge together and evolve together as a package.

In Science, “Reexamining Human Origins in Light of Ardipithecus ramidus”  by  C. Owen Lovejoy (Kent State U) writes about how wrong his predecessors had been…

“An essential goal of human evolutionary studies is to account for human uniqueness, most notably our bipedality, marked demographic success, unusual reproductive physiology, and unparalleled cerebral and technological abilities.  During the past several decades, it has been routinely argued that these hominid characters have evolved by simple modifications of homologs shared with our nearest living relatives, the chimpanzee and bonobo.  This method is termed referential modeling.”

“A central tenet has been the presumption (sometimes clearly stated but more often simply sub rosa) that Gorilla and Pan are so unusual and so similar to each other that they cannot have evolved in parallel; therefore, the earliest hominids must have also resembled these African apes.  Without a true early hominid fossil record, the de facto null hypothesis has been that Australopithecus was largely a bipedal manifestation of an African ape (especially the chimpanzee).  Such proxy-based scenarios have been elevated to common wisdom by genomic comparisons, progressively establishing the phylogenetic relationships of Gorilla, Pan, and Homo.”

The adaptive suites concept is actually in some ways an old idea, it suggests changes through experience such as the normal-looking lizard ancestor which took on a taste for ants as a result, future generations did as well. Then the lizard’s body went through changes with it’s new diet, thus making not only itself more fat and sluggish but it’s off spring as well. But it’s new evolved body prompted other changes in the body such as defences from other animals that might eat it.

In another observation, Ardi is listed at 4.4 million years (using the faulty evolutionary time line) and Lucy is  listed at 3.2 million years old. Both fossils were found not that far away from each other. One could ask, what direction was evolution going for 1.2 million years between the two?

Every so often there is a lot of hype over a particular fossil with the common claims of overturning previous speculation and the textbooks need to be rewritten with the new find. It’s a claim for fame. Look at the hype they made with Lucy, which had many tv specials!  Ida was another fossil but unlike the previous two, this one was so obvious even the militant evolutionists dismissed it’s hype created by the media as being a ‘missing link.’

If they really want to gain the truth about these fossils rather than the classic story telling then they should abandon Darwinism all together and become a creationist. Instead of using artwork to fill in the fossil in order to put false images in the minds of students they will use methods of reason, logic, evidence and rhetoric!

NASA’s Misdirection With New Discovery In Enceladus

Science Daily reports the Cassini spacecraft has found salt on Saturn’s  outermost ring . The source which supplies the material to this ring is Enceladus.

“Cassini discovered the water-ice jets in 2005 on Enceladus. These jets expel tiny ice grains and vapor, some of which escape the moon’s gravity and form Saturn’s outermost ring. Cassini’s cosmic dust analyzer has examined the composition of those grains and found salt within them.”

“We believe that the salty minerals deep inside Enceladus washed out from rock at the bottom of a liquid layer,” said Frank Postberg, Cassini scientist for the cosmic dust analyzer at the Max Planck Institute for Nuclear Physics in Heidelberg, Germany. Postberg is lead author of a study that appears in the June 25 issue of the journal Nature.”

John Spencer, Cassini scientist at Southwest Research Institute states in Nature“The chemistry of the plumes is of intense interest not only because it provides a unique opportunity to sample the interior of an icy moon directly, but also because the interior of this particular moon provides a potential habitat for extraterrestrial life.”

Searching for so-called alien life forms has been used quite often to get people excited over space exploration. The sad part of this sale, it’s a misdirection.

Let me explain, the journal Astrobiology Vol 2. No. 2 (2002) conducted an experiment, in order to find out the reaction of  RNA and membranes with salt. What they found was, the sea salt destroys fatty-acid membranes and prevents RNA from polymerizing, even at lower concentrations which are seven times weaker than in today’s oceans.

They concluded that the origin of life in the oceans would not be possible, and that a very protected environment of fresh water would have been necessary for emergent life to evolve far enough to protect itself from the damaging effects of sea salt.

Then in Astrobiology Magazine 2007, it states…

“The amount of salts in the ocean also could be stressful for life.  [Kevin] Hand [Jet Propulsion Laboratory] says the Galileo magnetometer results indicate Europa’s ocean could be nearly saturated in either sodium chloride or magnesium sulfate.”

“If you’ve got a salt-saturated ocean, that doesn’t bode well for the origin of life,” says Hand.  “Some of the processes that lead toward the generation of polymers or the stringing together of genetic base pairs are inhibited by high salt concentrations.  That said, there are terrestrial halophiles, salt-loving microbes, that could survive in the ocean we propose.”

A couple of years later, you got the likes of the BBC and a whole host of other media outlets joining in on the misdirection in trying to sell the public that salt water is one of the key components present for the origin of life.

But not all media outlets were fooled by such nonsense. An unlikely source LiveScience which is known for attacking creationism while defending evolution even said…

“That might sell papers and generate web clicks, but it’s overstated. What NASA found was strong evidence for a salty ocean under ice on the diminutive moon Enceladus. No signs of life were found, and in fact even the ocean needs to be confirmed, scientists said.”

I hardly agree with LiveScience, but they are right about the hype, it’s about ratings, in NASA’s case, it’s about getting people exciting over the prospect of finding alien life because it makes their projects easier to fund. While I really love space exploration and hope we do a lot more of it as it declares the glories of God, we certainly don’t need this type of fraud going on like Cassini scientist John Spencer is conducting in the science community.

The Forces That Drove Tectonically Stable Colorado Plateau

The Colorado Plateau is a vast area which entails Utah, Colorado, New Mexico and Arizona. It  has been subject to a long standing debate among geologists.

The heterogeneous region is no doubt very tricky not only because of the vast area but also trying to explain the forces that drove rock uplift of the low-relief, high-elevation, but remained tectonically stable.

Within certain frameworks namely in this case, evolutionary models are used to explain such complex systems. However, these models were deemed flawed as Roy, Jordan and Pederson pointed out flaws which falsified them. Did this mean they were going to endorse the creationist model? Hardly, a new model was proposed…

“We propose thermal perturbation and re-equilibration as a general mechanism for driving rock uplift within plate interiors, particularly in regions of thicker, more depleted lithosphere adjacent to zones of extension, such as the Colorado Plateau.”

“Our model differs from previous ideas of thermal modification of the Colorado Plateau in that it relies on a post-Laramide process that is triggered by the removal of the Farallon slab and the onset of thinning in the Basin and Range and Rio Grande rift provinces.”

“We show that thermal perturbation following mid-Tertiary removal of the Farallon slab can account for the majority of the observed rock uplift of the Colorado Plateau and, additionally, that this mechanism explains the observed rates of encroachment of the onset of Cenozoic magmatism onto the plateau.”

Let me point out, this particular model based on history cannot be tested, which means it cannot be proven. I am very skeptical of it’s contents, however, laypeople tend to exalt such a paper because it was published in a science journal.

I believe skeptics will find many flaws with this new proposed model. Rather than let the data speak for themselves, the data is forced into the evolutionary artificial system of story telling. Getting something to fit into a particular model is not the same as what we see in the real world!

How could  could these layers of rock be lifted up 2 kilometers without buckling? Come on people, think!  Numerous strata in the Grand Canyon that covers a vast area of hundreds of miles, being lifted up and down over and over again without tearing or tilting.  How could deforming not occur with all that movement within the old earth assumption? This paper explained absolutely nothing what we see in the real world!

The lack of erosion between many of the layers falsifies the belief that they were laid down over millions of years! And another thing, the faults and folds extend through all the layers, but don’t stop halfway up, agrees more with a young earth creationist model, not the old earth assumption!

There is plenty of other evidences which indicate the strata in the Colorado Plateau must have been laid down rapidly and catastrophically (the flood) but it’s ignored because it must be forced into the old earth hypothesis. This paper should not be honored in the name of science!