tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-109992452024-03-14T09:29:55.319+10:00Grey ThoughtsChristian views on current news, Australian styleAlan Greyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15039909118210086629noreply@blogger.comBlogger756125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10999245.post-72197379148795027852010-03-26T12:51:00.000+10:002010-03-26T12:51:10.696+10:00Why Socialism Makes the Rich RicherWith the historic passing of Obamacare in the U.S., much hype is being made by it's proponents that it will <a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2010/03/25/max-baucus-obamacare-will-help-correct-the-maldistribution-of-income/">help fix</a> the widening gap between rich and poor.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, this isn't what will happen. A quick example will show why government taxes, which is what Obamacare really is, make the poor poorer and the rich richer.<br />
<br />
Caterpillar has announced they will take a <a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2010/03/25/farm-equipment-manufacturers-take-deep-hits-from-obamacare/">100 Million dollar hit</a> from the extra taxes due to Obamacare, as will other farm machinery construction firms. This extra cost will be passed on to the consumers, that is, the farmers. So now the farmers are paying more, so their extra costs will be passed on to the people who buy the food, milk, leather and so on. So, essentially, everyone's expenses will go up.<br />
<br />
If you have millions and millions of dollars you can cope with the expenses. You can still buy everything you need, and have money left over to invest. Investments that make you more money.<br />
<br />
If you don't have lots of money, then these extra costs significantly reduce your ability to invest.<br />
<br />
So a big effect of the new taxes is to reduce the pool of people who have spare money to invest. In essence, leading the lower end of the income spectrum even further away from being more than just workers.<br />
<br />
With the reduced pool of people with spare money to invest and less money to invest, the average return on investments made will increase. Leaving the rich, who still have the capital to invest, with higher returns for their money.<br />
<br />
The rich get richer.Alan Greyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15039909118210086629noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10999245.post-76296512726142846752010-02-18T08:21:00.001+10:002010-02-18T08:23:05.739+10:00Shock: Sir John Houghton Admits He Would Never Tell The TruthLast week, the Independent published an article in which Sir John Houghton admitted that<a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/fabricated-quote-used-to-discredit-climate-scientist-1894552.html"> he was not the sort of person to be honest</a>.<br />
<br />
<blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px;"></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px;"><div class="font-null" style="margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">"There are those who will say 'unless we announce disasters, no one will listen', but I'm not one of them," Sir John told The Independent.</div><div class="font-null" style="margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">"It's not the sort of thing I would ever say. It's quite the opposite of what I think and it pains me to see this quote being used repeatedly in this way. I would never say we should hype up the risk of climate disasters in order to get noticed," he said.</div></span></blockquote><br />
So when Piers Ackerman documents<a href="http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/piersakerman/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/malicious_bullets_fired_by_the_global_warmists_guns/"> the many cases </a>where Sir John does announce disasters and scaremonger, it is clear that all Sir John is really saying, is that he would never be so truthful as to admit he announces disasters to scaremonger about global warming.<br />
<br />
Nice work Sir John...that's for coming clean and admitting you are a liar. In other news, an evil robot on another planet just imploded in front of William Shatner.Alan Greyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15039909118210086629noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10999245.post-83444575966344540472010-01-27T07:54:00.002+10:002010-01-27T09:21:32.050+10:00Abbott says women are valuable...feminists up in arms<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Opposition leader Tony Abbott is <a href="http://www.news.com.au/national/young-professional-women-not-abbott-fans/story-e6frfkw9-1225823829096">reported in todays news </a>to have said that women </span><span style="line-height: 18px;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> "shouldn't give themselves away lightly".</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 18px;">"Deputy" Prime Minister Julia Gillard of course was upset at the marks, saying that Abbott shouldn't tell women what to do....Julia prefers her women cheap obviously.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 18px;"><br />
</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 18px;">In other news, the government has withdrawn it's campaigns to discourage smoking, not wearing seat belts and getting a tan, as they don't want to tell people what to do....</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 18px;"><br />
</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 18px;">Update: More of the context of Abbott's comments are <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/01/26/2801725.htm">available in this abc article</a>.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 18px;">Talking about his daughters he said</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 18px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, 'Lucida Grande', 'Bitstream Vera Sans', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">"Because in the end these are all very personal things. But if someone asked my advice, I would say, don't do anything that you will live to regret if you can possibly help it, and try to act in ways in which a self-respecting person would act."</span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, 'Lucida Grande', 'Bitstream Vera Sans', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px;"><br />
</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 18px;">Once again, this shows the pathetic dishonesty of Julia Gillard and many commentators.</span></span>Alan Greyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15039909118210086629noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10999245.post-14492587930175012042010-01-22T15:11:00.001+10:002010-01-22T15:40:49.648+10:00Women Demand Equal Jail TimeFollowing on from France's legislating that <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/01/22/2798789.htm">females must comprise 40% of the boards of public companies</a>, women's groups are demanding women must also make up at least 40% of the prison population.<br />
<br />
Like the boardrooms of France's public companies, <a href="http://www.prisonpolicy.org/graphs/genderinc.html">prison's only have 10% female representation</a>, and women's groups are demanding gender equity is prison.<br />
<br />
"Women will only be equal once this terrible inequity is resolved." one spokeswoman commented.Alan Greyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15039909118210086629noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10999245.post-66369616087632610392010-01-11T17:15:00.002+10:002010-01-11T21:33:42.923+10:00PZ Myers shows why evolution is unfalsifiablePZ Myers, on the Panda's Thumb, has a great post up which highlights <a href="http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2010/01/casey-luskin-em.html">just how plastic the claims</a> of common descent evolution are.<br />
<br />
The change has to do with finding evidence of a tetrapod 18 million years further back than currently accepted. The evidence also shows more advanced features than Tiktaalik, which was a fossil that seemed to give great joy to evolutionists like PZ.<br />
<br />
The first diagram (which appeared in Nature) is useful.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjiL43FdXnW1RxnTe2WoQX-Gfa7uTsmkSYFjCODtjv93DXWg9YCWIOm0x2OfzlXw_Hp7mquFCxzu4UqxJq2icJudh-cEeaUrD5rUoOm9FjWT0hZEUpg0DhXjUBJvpogdk54KFkE/s1600-h/tiktaalik_phylo.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="284" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjiL43FdXnW1RxnTe2WoQX-Gfa7uTsmkSYFjCODtjv93DXWg9YCWIOm0x2OfzlXw_Hp7mquFCxzu4UqxJq2icJudh-cEeaUrD5rUoOm9FjWT0hZEUpg0DhXjUBJvpogdk54KFkE/s320/tiktaalik_phylo.jpg" width="320" /></a><br />
</div><br />
PZ, tells us "<span style="color: #333333; font-family: arial, helvetica, hirakakupro-w3, osaka, 'ms pgothic', sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 16px;">Notice what you don't see? They didn't publish this as a direct, linear relationship that could be disrupted by a minor anachronism."</span><br />
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: arial, helvetica, hirakakupro-w3, osaka, 'ms pgothic', sans-serif; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 16px;"><br />
</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: arial, helvetica, hirakakupro-w3, osaka, 'ms pgothic', sans-serif; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 16px;">Yep. The diagram cannot be disrupted. No direct relationships are given. We can't actually tell any relationship from the diagram. 'Unexpected' findings will merely cause the modification of relationships, never the questioning that common descent evolution is true.</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: arial, helvetica, hirakakupro-w3, osaka, 'ms pgothic', sans-serif; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 16px;"><br />
</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: arial, helvetica, hirakakupro-w3, osaka, 'ms pgothic', sans-serif; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 16px;">Notice too, that PZ tries to pass of the new finding as a 'minor anachronism'.</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: arial, helvetica, hirakakupro-w3, osaka, 'ms pgothic', sans-serif; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 16px;"><br />
</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: arial, helvetica, hirakakupro-w3, osaka, 'ms pgothic', sans-serif; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 16px;">Lets quickly review what the scientists and science journalists say about it</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: arial, helvetica, hirakakupro-w3, osaka, 'ms pgothic', sans-serif; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 16px;"><br />
</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: arial, helvetica, hirakakupro-w3, osaka, 'ms pgothic', sans-serif; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 16px;"><br />
</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: arial, helvetica, hirakakupro-w3, osaka, 'ms pgothic', sans-serif; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 16px;"><br />
</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: arial, helvetica, hirakakupro-w3, osaka, 'ms pgothic', sans-serif; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 16px;">Creation Safaris has a good round up <a href="http://creationsafaris.com/crev201001.htm#20100106b">here</a></span></span><br />
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: arial, helvetica, hirakakupro-w3, osaka, 'ms pgothic', sans-serif; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 16px;"><span style="-webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 2px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 2px; color: black; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans, sans-serif, univers; font-size: 13px; line-height: normal;"></span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: arial, helvetica, hirakakupro-w3, osaka, 'ms pgothic', sans-serif; font-size: medium;"></span><br />
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: arial, helvetica, hirakakupro-w3, osaka, 'ms pgothic', sans-serif; font-size: medium;"></span><br />
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: arial, helvetica, hirakakupro-w3, osaka, 'ms pgothic', sans-serif; font-size: medium;"></span><br />
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: arial, helvetica, hirakakupro-w3, osaka, 'ms pgothic', sans-serif; font-size: medium;"></span><br />
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: arial, helvetica, hirakakupro-w3, osaka, 'ms pgothic', sans-serif; font-size: medium;"><ul><li>“These results <b>force us to reconsider our whole picture of the transition from fish to land animals</b>” said co-discoverer Per Ahlberg in <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100107114420.htm">Science Daily</a>.</li>
<li>The finding “could <b>lead to significant shifts in our knowledge</b> of the <b>timing</b> and ecological setting of <b>early tetrapod evolution</b>.” – Ted Daeschler in <a href="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/01/100106-tetrapod-tracks-oldest-footprints-nature-evolution-walking-land.html">National Geographic News</a>.</li>
<li>“The team says the find means that <b>land vertebrates appeared millions of years earlier than previously supposed</b>.... the Zachelmie Quarry tetrapods <b>break the neat and simple timeline</b>.” (<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8443879.stm">BBC News</a>).</li>
<li>“The fish–tetrapod <b>transition was thus seemingly quite well documented</b>.... Now, however, Niedzwiedzki <i>et al</i> <b>lob a grenade into that picture.</b>” – Janvier and Clement, commenting on the find in <i>Nature</i>.<small><sup>2</sup></small></li>
<li>“It <b>blows the whole story out of the water</b>, so to speak.” – Jenny Clack (Harvard), in <a href="http://www.physorg.com/news182005810.html">PhysOrg</a>.</li>
<li>“We <b>didn’t know they existed at this point</b>, and <b>we would not have expected</b> to have found them in this environment.” – Per Ahlberg, co-discoverer, in <a href="http://www.livescience.com/animals/100106-tetrapod-footprints.html">Live Science</a>.</li>
</ul></span><br />
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: arial, helvetica, hirakakupro-w3, osaka, 'ms pgothic', sans-serif; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 16px;"><br />
</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: arial, helvetica, hirakakupro-w3, osaka, 'ms pgothic', sans-serif; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 16px;">It seems other people think it a little more than minor..</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: arial, helvetica, hirakakupro-w3, osaka, 'ms pgothic', sans-serif; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 16px;"><br />
</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: arial, helvetica, hirakakupro-w3, osaka, 'ms pgothic', sans-serif; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 16px;"><br />
</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: arial, helvetica, hirakakupro-w3, osaka, 'ms pgothic', sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 16px;">The next couple of diagrams neatly show how evolution simply adapts any time an 'unexpected' finding happens...</span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgHwYGcKDTzUGgHsRkJ8vGpwBBOkeyS7bWTgvHHwcZL8vdLrQBQyLnfLVwars9cudskLro4RpZWIch91ChzFaCfyLt1thlHNmtnlBcUlTgI6xmxfLZktr3Z2N87R5OPWv0PntO1/s1600-h/clad1.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="226" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgHwYGcKDTzUGgHsRkJ8vGpwBBOkeyS7bWTgvHHwcZL8vdLrQBQyLnfLVwars9cudskLro4RpZWIch91ChzFaCfyLt1thlHNmtnlBcUlTgI6xmxfLZktr3Z2N87R5OPWv0PntO1/s320/clad1.jpeg" width="320" /></a><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhkDpfLAweN8Y8rSRUbVR793GboKsJVhKniFIA_1EOgZDUF8yaemec5_P9-xUj-wkUXwchfhatB_2sPZ_lfGl_ahIJn6s1jo5MiCuErfNfqqILEzWHd6fgzhoNZsmbFxyBrvYrx/s1600-h/clad2.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="232" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhkDpfLAweN8Y8rSRUbVR793GboKsJVhKniFIA_1EOgZDUF8yaemec5_P9-xUj-wkUXwchfhatB_2sPZ_lfGl_ahIJn6s1jo5MiCuErfNfqqILEzWHd6fgzhoNZsmbFxyBrvYrx/s320/clad2.jpeg" width="320" /></a><br />
</div><span style="color: #333333; font-family: arial, helvetica, hirakakupro-w3, osaka, 'ms pgothic', sans-serif; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 16px;"><br />
</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: arial, helvetica, hirakakupro-w3, osaka, 'ms pgothic', sans-serif; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 16px;"><br />
</span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-family: arial, helvetica, hirakakupro-w3, osaka, 'ms pgothic', sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 16px;">Notice how the diagram is simply extended and modified to adjust to the new findings. ANY new finding can thus be adapted, BECAUSE a direct relationship is never given.</span><br />
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: arial, helvetica, hirakakupro-w3, osaka, 'ms pgothic', sans-serif; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 16px;"><br />
</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: arial, helvetica, hirakakupro-w3, osaka, 'ms pgothic', sans-serif; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 16px;">Creating a morphological tree is not evidence for evolution, as a tree can be created for pretty much any dataset.</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: arial, helvetica, hirakakupro-w3, osaka, 'ms pgothic', sans-serif; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 16px;"><br />
</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: arial, helvetica, hirakakupro-w3, osaka, 'ms pgothic', sans-serif; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 16px;">But don't tell PZ that, because his faith in evolution is blind and un-shakeable.</span></span>Alan Greyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15039909118210086629noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10999245.post-19794727721450617802009-11-26T14:13:00.002+10:002009-11-26T14:18:34.601+10:00Malcolm Turnbull is a moronI normally reserve the 'M' word for Richard Dawkins, but Malcolm Turnbull is a moron.<br />
<br />
Lets review the facts...<br />
<br />
Malcolm wants to try and force all his liberal friends to vote FOR Labors Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). This is insanely stupid on so many levels.<br />
<br />
1) Politically, agreeing with the opposing party gains you no benefit and considering every new survey that comes out shows the population becoming more and more skeptical, there is only political benefit from opposing the scheme, which looks to cost the average Aussie around $1,100 per year at least. It is ironic to find a Liberal supporting an environment scheme even the Greens won't support.<br />
<br />
Worse still, he is trying to force a party line vote, which has never been how the Liberal party does things. That is how Labor does things.<br />
<br />
Copenhagen will not be swayed by whether Australia has an ETS, so there is no sensible reason to hurry and try and pass the legislation.<br />
<br />
2) Economically, there is no benefit to Australia as the ETS as our impact on temperature (even according the to alarmists) that any reduction in our green house gas emissions will be non-existent. Hence ANY cost hurts Australia economically. <br />
<br />
Naive, nice sounding programs that actually hurt us all in the long run are Labor's specialty, not the Liberals.<br />
<br />
3) Scientifically, the case that man-made global warming is a world ending threat are unravelling. The data has been manipulated and fudged by a bunch of scientists desperate to have their religion change the world. The climate computer models are broken and unreliable. <br />
<br />
The recent climategate emails are only the latest in a long line of evidence that this is the case.<br />
<br />
4) Morally. Everyone keeps telling us that global warming is a moral issue. And it is. People have died because of this scam already. Supporting the impoverishment of people on uncertain science, and bad economics is morally reprehensible. <br />
<br />
I assume Malcolm isn't a moral monster, so the only other reasonable conclusion is that he is a moron, and more than likely a closet Labor party member.Alan Greyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15039909118210086629noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10999245.post-63664965983736902892009-07-17T11:14:00.002+10:002009-07-17T11:20:00.642+10:00Welcome to your lying Prime MinisterKevin Rudd is blogging (apparently), and of course, it is <a href="http://www.pm.gov.au/PM_Connect/PMs_Blog/Climate_Change_Blog">about climate change</a>.<br /><br />Right out of the bat, Krudd lets go the biggest whopper you can image<br /><blockquote>The latest scientific research on climate change confirms our worst fears. Climate change is happening faster than we previously thought, creating a more serious threat to our economy, our environment and to future generations.</blockquote><br /><br />Sorry Kev, but you are lying to the public. Even the global warming alarmists over at Real Climate are saying that temperature is <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/07/warminginterrupted-much-ado-about-natural-variability/">not going to rise till 2020</a>. <br /><br />How then can you say with a straight face that climate change is happening faster than we previously thought? Oh...that's right, you are a Labor Politician.Alan Greyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15039909118210086629noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10999245.post-14034522995326922752009-06-22T07:14:00.002+10:002009-06-22T07:18:21.047+10:00Domestic Abuse By Women SoarsIt's a serious problem, that is often overlooked, and the number of cases reported to police has <a href="http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25667548-1242,00.html">nearly tripled</a> in the last 8 years.<br /><br />Of course, the media headline on news.com.au's front page, covering for abusive women, gives the head-line 'Record bashings by stressed-out wives'. I seriously doubt that would paint an abusive male partner in such a sympathetic light.Alan Greyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15039909118210086629noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10999245.post-38383110154086579382009-05-18T12:17:00.004+10:002009-05-18T12:26:01.477+10:00Stealth Bomber picsOkay...a somewhat giant geek attack, but I saw this cool photo of a b-2 stealth bomber breaking the sound barrier.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01401/b2_spiritBomber_1401883c.jpg"><img style="cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 460px; height: 288px;" src="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01401/b2_spiritBomber_1401883c.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a><br /><br />It immediately made me think of another advanced plane, which contains a few similarities...what I would like to call the version 1 stealth bomber.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.bookmice.net/darkchilde/thunder/ep4/20.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 460px; height: 288px;" src="http://www.bookmice.net/darkchilde/thunder/ep4/20.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a><br /><br />Is it just me, or are there a few similarities there (and not just that it was a T2)Alan Greyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15039909118210086629noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10999245.post-20226658930398321122009-05-13T12:36:00.003+10:002009-05-13T13:00:20.094+10:00Tactics in defending evolutionCharles, from Little Green Footballs <a href="http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/33646_RedState_Proves_the_GOP_Isnt_Anti-Science_-_By_Promoting_Creationism">posts</a> about a <a href="http://www.redstate.com/realityunwound/2009/05/11/liberals-are-anti-science-reading-between-the-lines-of-intellectual-bullying/">redstate article</a> which defends the idea that conservatives are not anti-science, but that it is the liberals, using the frame of the ID-evolution debate.<br /><br />Charles, from what I understand is a conservative or libertarian who has a strong dislike of anyone questioning evolution.<br /><br />A few things stick out about Charles' post though. <br /><br />A quick problem is that he uses the term 'creationist' to describe 'Intelligent Design' (ID), thus trying to link the ID movement with young earth creationists like Answers in Genesis and progressive creationists like Reasons To Believe. This is a common debating tactic of trying to make your target seem less main-stream than they really are. But Charles seems unable to consistently use this categorization as he then goes on to claim that 'We’ve dealt with this silly argument so many times at LGF that it gets tiresome to keep repeating it, but “intelligent design” creationism has absolutely no legitimacy as a scientific theory; there isn’t a single peer-reviewed paper that supports it, there is no research behind it, there are no reputable scientists who promote it, and the most famous (actually, the only) biologist identified with ID, Michael Behe, has been explicitly denounced by his own department at Lehigh University.' Charles is trying to have it both ways, using the small size of the ID movement as a negative, but lumping it with 'creationists' to also cast it in a negative light. Of course, someone should remind Charles that the vast majority of Americans would agree with the statement that 'God was directly involved in some way in the creation of the various forms of life on the planet.' So really it is Charles' position which is the fringe position (amongst the general population). There are many creation scientists, from all strands of science, but of course, the vast majority of scientists support evolution.<br /><br />So Charles accepts the authority of some scientists but not others. Preferring the majority to the minority. Nothing wrong with that, but he doesn't seem to do the same thing with Global warming, which he calls the "<a href="http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=24691&only">international left’s newest article of blind faith</a>". <br /><br />Charles is probably a very intelligent guy, but at some point we all choose which authorities to accept. <br /><br />The question is why do you choose some authorities and not others to believe. Do you fairly evaluate the alternatives or do you dismiss arguments simply because they mention God? Do you think evidence for Intelligent design is even possible? Because if not, then your begging the question, not weighing the options, and that isn't reason, that's blind faith.<br /><br />Intelligent Design is a concept that has been discussed and promoted for thousands of years by philosophers and religious folk, all the way back to luminaries such as Socrates. To ridicule it and dismiss it out of hand is to show yourself to be ignorant, not educated or intelligent.Alan Greyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15039909118210086629noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10999245.post-15279372664003543082009-04-12T08:08:00.002+10:002009-04-12T08:58:42.214+10:00Consequences of the Death of EducationThere has been a concerted effort to push real education out and replace it with a shallow, foundationless indoctrination. Nowhere is this more evident than in politics.<br /><br />It used to be that you had to do a western civilization component for any university degree, where you would be taught the foundational ideas that underly both the conservative and liberal movement. Watching the debates (and I used the term loosely) that go on about politics show clearly that almost no-one knows or understands any of the foundations. (The one exception I would say is that libertarians do understand the foundations of libertarianism - Atlas Shrugs continues to be widely read)<br /><br />Consider <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-weber/gop-rip_b_185447.html">this Huffington Post</a> piece as a typical example of the political discourse that goes on today. The Author, Steven Weber, is an actor. Which is to say, that his chief qualification is playing make believe. Yet our political discourse is so retarded that some people consider actors as experts (Consider the cast of Battlestar Galactica being asked to talk at a U.N. function on international/religious relations).<br /><br />A quick read of the article leaves you with one impression (actually two, but I will refrain from talking about Weber's character). That republicans are apparently irrational, evil, fearful, outdated monsters. The enemy of all that is good. You may however, have trouble finding anything even remotely considered a logical argument to support this case.<br /><br />And that seems to be the plan. Insult the right. It's easy to do. The left-wing ideals are all so very shiny...universal health care, higher minimum wage, progressive tax, redistribute wealth to the poor, open the borders, release the prisoners, stop the war. All very noble sounding....help people, make peace, be 'excellent' to each other.<br /><br />The ideas sound so nice...why only irrational, evil, fearful, outdated monsters would oppose them. Or so it seems to the likes of Weber.<br /><br />The situation is only marginally better on the right. Conservatives are looking for a conservative G.O.P., and finding it hard to find. The population, lacking foundational education, is swayed easily by the fast-food ideals of the left, and so many in the G.O.P. are trying to add sugar to their buns, in order to stay 'relevant'. Instead of educating (a very difficult thing to do out of school in our sound-bite culture), conservative movements from around the world have become fiscal liberals (Even here in our recent QLD state election). Is it any wonder our economy is in so bad shape.<br /><br />And that is the problem today. The left peddles short-term nice sounding goals. Kevin Rudd in Australia is popular, and why not...he is giving everyone $900! Yet anyone who takes the time to think about it should realise that that $900 will actually cost them at least $1200. If anyone thinks this is a good deal, feel free to message me...I will happily give you $900 if you give me $1200. Short-term feel good fast-food.<br /><br />Universal health-care sounds nice....but doesn't work - which is why people fly from Canada to the U.S. to get many types of health-care. People not having to pay for their own health-care is a moral hazard, as it encourages poor life-style choices. This means everyone else has to pay for the smokers health-care. The only 'reasonable' way forward then is to mandate what people can and can't do (or abandon universal health-care...unthinkable and evil don't you know)<br /><br />Large scale Social security/welfare sounds nice....but doesn't work - which is why welfare spending in Australia now accounts for nearly half the Australian government budget....and is only going to get worse. Or consider Europe, where there aren't enough young people to make enough money to pay for the welfare of the elderly. Or America, where the welfare system is essentially bankrupt.<br /><br />Beating our swords into ploughshares sounds nice....but doesn't work - Russia, Iran, North Korea, China, Somalian Pirates, just to name a few that are becoming more emboldened and militant in their actions because of the perceived weakness of America.<br /><br />Releasing the prisoners sounds nice....but doesn't work - consider how many guantanamo bay releasees have gone straight back into fighting the west through terrorist activities.<br /><br />Opening the borders sounds nice....but doesn't work - consider the massive social upheavals across the globe (Cronulla riots in Australia, no-go zones in Europe) where large scale cultural differences are prominent, mostly due to open borders policies allowing more into the country than can be culturally assimilated. <br /><br />So what is the chief foundation that is missing? What is it, that makes all these nice sounding ideas implode in the long-term?<br /><br />Morality...people are moral beings...but more than that, people are fallen moral beings. No-one lives up to even their own moral code, let alone the moral code of a transcendent omnipotent God. The western world is no longer being taught that it is full of sinners. Full of people, who no matter how hard they try, continue to do things they consider wrong, things that negatively affect themselves and others.<br /><br />It has been said that the fallen nature of man is the most empirically established fact in history. History declares that we are sinners who cannot perfect ourselves....<br /><br />To ignore this fact is the height of stupidity, yet our educational institutions no longer teach it...the most important aspect of human nature is ignored.<br /><br />I would suggest their are several reasons....<br />Firstly, we have been told that 'self-esteem' is more important than understanding that everyone...you, me, politicians...everyone, is a sinner.<br /><br />Secondly, we live in a fast-food, sound-bite culture. Depth of understanding is disintegrating, and it is so much easier to pander to short-term desires than to real needs.<br /><br />Thirdly, there is a campaign by the left to indoctrinate the world into their vision. It is a matter of record that universities and schools are predominantly left-leaning (since the 1960's). Teaching western civilization has been removed because it would challenge the left-wing vision.<br /><br />So, next time you read a contentless article decrying the evils of conservative ideology, and you wonder how anyone with a brain and a heart could be a conservative, just remember, maybe it is because the person is actually using both their brain and their heart.<br /><br /><blockquote><br />Show me a young conservative and I'll show you a man without a heart. Show me an old liberal and I'll show you a man without a brain.<br /><br />-Winston Churchill</blockquote>Alan Greyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15039909118210086629noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10999245.post-90974953976476786922009-02-04T13:54:00.002+10:002009-02-04T14:00:01.593+10:00The Testing Begins - MSM Strangely absentAgreeing with Joe Biden, I was pretty sure that major enemies of freedom would start to move as soon as Obama was in power, testing the resolve of the new President, who already appeared weaker than Bush.<br /><br />Of course, the only news I had read around Obama's inauguration was that Iran was trying to get Obama to apologise.<br /><br />That's what I get for relying on the Obama-infatuated MSM....<br /><br />The real news...<br />1) China released a <a href="http://www.china.org.cn/government/whitepaper/node_7060059.htm">new Military white pape</a>r announcing it's intent to secure regional hegemony within the decade.<br />2) Iran launches a satellite on a rocket <a href="http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/2174/congratulations-iran">capable of being an ICBM</a>. Troubling with their soon to be nuclear capability<br />3) Russia bribes Kyrzygstan to <a href="http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/61394.html">kick out a U.S. base</a>, essentially stopping U.S. building up power in Afghanistan.<br /><br />The world is moving in a bad bad direction, and the MSM doesn't seem to care, or want anyone to know.Alan Greyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15039909118210086629noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10999245.post-34204890525302413282008-12-15T13:32:00.002+10:002008-12-15T13:39:23.058+10:00How to tell if an Atheist is not objective1) If they <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/11/faith_hurts.php">quote</a> a <a href="http://alangrey.blogspot.com/2005/10/science-academic-authority-and-bias.html">worthless</a> study by Gregory S Paul (who draws dinosaurs) which claims that religion is bad for society.<br /><br />Many atheists claim to be skeptical and rational in their approach. In fact, they oft claim they are more rational and more skeptical that theists.<br /><br />Yet when it comes to having reviewing evidence that supports their belief system, that rationality and skepticism seems to vanish.<br /><br />Add PZ Myers to the <a href="http://alangrey.blogspot.com/2005/12/accepting-bad-data-uncritically.html">long list</a> of atheists who have shown their lack of objectivity, and therefore their trustworthiness.Alan Greyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15039909118210086629noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10999245.post-12510750000092667822008-12-15T09:16:00.002+10:002008-12-15T09:21:33.439+10:00Why I Don't Vote LaborLet me get this straight. <br /><br />We are told we are in the worst financial crisis since the great depression, and that unemployment will rise, and more people will fail to make ends meet.<br /><br />So what does the government do?<br /><br />Firstly, they change IR laws to make it tougher for businesses to make ends meet.<br /><br />Secondly, they raise immigration, increasing the pool of workers which are going to compete for fewer jobs.<br /><br />Finally, they push through climate change legislation (unlike pretty much every other nation which has decided not to) which will increase the cost of living.<br /><br />None of these effects are disputed.<br /><br />So essentially, under Labor's brain dead actions, more businesses will go bankrupt, more people will become unemployed and more people will fail to be able to support themselves.<br /><br />Congratulations for all those who voted for Labor. At least you got your apology for the not so stolen generations.Alan Greyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15039909118210086629noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10999245.post-33387051336384862812008-11-07T10:38:00.002+10:002008-11-07T11:23:59.934+10:00The Global Warming Lies That BindIt is a curious thing, when a global warming alarmist has their work checked.<br /><br />Take the case of Michael Mann, whose infamous hockey stick temperature graph was <a href="http://www.climatechangeissues.com/files/PDF/conf05mckitrick.pdf">soundly discredited</a> by people who actually understood statistics. The essential problem was that Mann's statistical methods derive a hockey stick shape from random noise.<br /><br />So how did Mann respond? He wrote another paper, this time 'all new and improved' with many many more sources of data and a refined statistical method, and lo and behold....another hockey stick appears.<br /><br />The obvious question remains...if Mann's original study was essentially statistical rubbish, how did he get to a hockey stick shape? Was it sheer fluke (unlikely), or perhaps instead it was an attempt to show the preconceived notion that Mann held that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) was real. For Mann, the hockey stick is an article of faith. It <span style="font-weight:bold;">must</span> be real so that his faith in AGW is real.<br /><br />It is no surprise then, that when the same people who checked over his previous hockey stick paper, checked over his latest paper, they find a host of similar problems. (For the mathematically minded, you can view the investigation at <a href="http://www.climateaudit.org">Climate Audit</a> (Search for mann 2008).<br /><br />Mann isn't the only global warming alarmist whose scientific efforts seem somewhat unreliable.<br /><br />Enter Santer, a scientist who has showed us, time and again, that the spread of temperature in the atmosphere is what we would expect if AGW was real. An earlier Santer paper from 1995 made it into the findings of IPCC reports (as "[the] pattern correlation coefficient [was increasing with time] as the human signal emerged from the background noise of climate variability"), where Singer (1997) noted that he had removed all of the trend lines, including zero and negative trends, except the one that suggested an increasing correlation in the last 50 years. Santer claimed he had done this for "pedagogic reasons". One can only think he was trying to 'educate' (and I use the term loosely) us that AGW was real.<br /><br />Santer also had another part in the IPCC where he one again, used selective data to to supposedly show that altitude and latitude patterns matched AGW expectations.<br /><br />Singer, Douglass , Pearcey and Christy published peer-reviewed articles highlighting Santer's paper's failings.<br /><br />But, like a faithful global warming alarmist, Santer released a new study (Santer et al 2008) which was 'new and improved' and showed the signal Santer tried to show in his 1995 paper.<br /><br />So once again, we have an AGW alarmist scientist, whose original paper was not valid, amazingly finding the same answer as before. Another lucky coincidence...or is this just another example of the failure of the scientific method. Santer and Mann should be trying to disprove their hypothesis, not to select the data and methods which confirm it.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.climateaudit.org">Climate Audit</a> also looks into this Santer paper as well.Alan Greyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15039909118210086629noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10999245.post-28684898957920706092008-10-30T14:06:00.006+10:002008-11-03T09:34:39.218+10:00Evolution and Creation - Summary<span style="font-weight:bold;">Conflict of paradigms</span><br /><br />Thomas Kuhn, in his famous work ‘The structure of scientific revolutions’ brought the wider worldview concept of his day into understanding science. His (and Polanyi’s) concept of paradigmic science, where scientific investigation is done within a wider ‘paradigm’ moved the debate over what exactly science is towards real science requiring two things<br />1) An overarching paradigm which shapes how scientists view data (i.e. theory laden science)<br />2) Solving problems within that paradigm<br /><br />Kuhn claimed that Karl Popper’s ‘falsification criteria’ for science was not accurate, as there were many historical cases where a result occurred that could be considered as falsifying the theory, yet the theory was not discarded as the scientists merely created additional ad hoc hypothesis to explain the problems.<br /><br />It is through the view of Kuhnian paradigms that I view the evolution and creation debate.<br /><br />(Curiously, Karl Popper obliquely referred to Kuhn’s scientific paradigm concept when he said “Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research programme.” )<br /><br />Here I define evolution (Common Descent Evolution or CDE) as: The theory that all life on earth evolved from a common ancestor over billions of years via the unguided natural processes of mutation and selection (and ‘drift’) and creation (Young earth creation or YEC) as: The theory that various kinds of life were created under 10,000 years ago and variation within these kinds occurs within limits via mutation and select (and ‘drift’).<br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">I believe CDE and YEC can both be properly and most accurately defined as being scientific paradigms.</span><br /><br />Whilst CDE proponents claim that CDE is falsifiable (E.g. Haldane and Dawkins saying a fossil Rabbit in the Precambrian era would falsify CDE), it is easy to see how the theory laden-ness of science makes such a find unlikely. Classification of rock strata was initially (and still commonly) done via the presence of index fossils. (Note: The designation of these fossils as representing a certain historical period was done within the CDE paradigm) The finding of a fossil Rabbit in a rock strata would almost certainly result in classification of the strata as something other than pre-cambrian, or the inclusion of other ad hoc explanations for the fossil (Overthrusts, reworking etc). It is worth noting that many smaller (only 200 million year) similar type surprises are happily integrated within CDE. (A recent example is pushing back gecko’s <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080902163920.htm">40 million years </a>in time) The main point here is that the claimed falsification is not a falsification of CDE, but merely falsifies the assumption that fossils are always buried in a chronological fashion. CDE can clearly survive as a theory even if only most fossils are buried in chronological fashion.<br /><br />Many other events and observations exist which could be said to falsify evolution (e.g. the origin of life, soft tissue remaining in dinosaur fossils), but are happily left as unsolved issues. It is because of these types of occurrences that I suggest CDE is properly assigned as a scientific paradigm. Which is to say that CDE is not viewed as falsified by these unexpected observations, but instead these problems within CDE are viewed as the grist for the mill for making hypothesis and evaluating hypothesis within the paradigm.<br /><br />YEC can also be properly identified as a scientific paradigm although significantly less well funded and so significantly less able to do research into the problems that existing observations create within the paradigm. One such example of research done is the RATE project. Specifically the helium diffusion study which predicted levels of helium in zircons to be approximately 100,000 times higher than expected if CDE were true.<br /><br />What placing YEC and CDE as scientific paradigms does is make sense of the argument. CDE proponents (properly) place significant problems within CDE as being something that will be solved in the future (E.g. origin of life) within the CDE paradigm. YEC can also do the same (E.g. Endogenous Retroviral Inserts).<br /><span style="font-weight:bold;"><br />Comments</span><br />1) Ideas like Stephen Gould’s non-overlapping Magistra (NOMA) are self-evidently false. If God did create the universe 7000 years ago, there will definitely be implications for science.<br />2) Ruling out a supernatural God as a possible causative agent is not valid. As with (1) such an activity is detectable for significant events (like creation of the world/life) and so can be investigated by science.<br />a. To argue otherwise is essentially claim that science is not looking for truth, but merely the best naturalistic explanation. If this is the case, then science cannot disprove God, nor can science make a case that YEC is wrong.<br />b. Anthony Flew, famous atheist turned deist makes the point quite clearly when talking about his reasons for becoming a deist<br /><blockquote>“It was empirical evidence, the evidence uncovered by the sciences. But it was a philosophical inference drawn from the evidence. Scientists as scientists cannot make these kinds of philosophical inferences. They have to speak as philosophers when they study the philosophical implications of empirical evidence.”</blockquote><br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Certainty in science</span><br /><br />Flew’s comments highlight another significant issue. The role of inference. Especially in ‘historical’ (I prefer the term 'non-experimental') science.<br /><br />Much rhetorical use is given to the notion that YEC proponents discard the science that gave us planes, toasters and let us visit the moon (sometimes called ‘operational’...I prefer ‘experimental’ science). Yet CDE is not the same type of science that gave us these things. CDE is making claims about the distant past by using present observations and there is a real disconnect when doing this.<br /><br />One of the chief functions of experiment is to rule out other possible explanations (causes) for the occurrence being studied. Variables are carefully controlled in multiple experiments to do this. The ability to rule out competing explanations is severally degraded when dealing with historical science because you cannot repeat and control variables. You may be able to repeat an observation, but there is no control over the variables for the historical event you are studying. <br /><br />Scientists dealing with non-experimental science have to deal with this problem, and they generally do so by making assumptions (sometimes well founded, sometimes not). A couple of clear examples are uniformitarianism (Geological processes happening today, happened the same way, the same rate in the past) and the idea that similarity implies ancestry.<br /><br />A couple of quotes will make my point for me. Henry Gee chief science writer for Nature wrote "No fossil is buried with its birth certificate" ... and "the intervals of time that separate fossils are so huge that we cannot say anything definite about their possible connection through ancestry and descent." It's hard enough, with written records, to trace a human lineage back a few hundred years. When we have only a fragmentary fossil record, and we're dealing with millions of years -- what Gee calls "Deep Time" -- the job is effectively impossible... Gee concludes: "To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story -- amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific." (Taken from Icon’s of Evolution). Gee’s response to this quote of him supports my point “That it is impossible to trace direct lineages of ancestry and descent from the fossil record should be self-evident. Ancestors must exist, of course -- but we can never attribute ancestry to any particular fossil we might find…. Again, this is a logical constraint that must apply even if evolution were true -- which is not in doubt, because if we didn't have ancestors, then we wouldn't be here.”<br /><br />Colin Paterson’s infamous quote about the lack of transitional fossils makes the same point. “The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question.”<br /><br />A simple thought experiment highlights this concept. Assuming at some point in the future, scientists find some scientific knowledge that makes the naturalistic origin of life a more plausible possibility given the time constraints. (For instance...given completely arbitrary probabilities, say there is a 15% chance of OOL from unliving chemicals driven by natural processes in the lifetime of the earth to date) Does this mean that it must of happened that way in the past? Clearly the answer is no.<br /><br />But even claims of certainty about experimental science is unjustified. The history of science contains many examples of widely held scientific beliefs being overturned. Phlogiston is probably the most famous, but geosynclinal theory (preceding plate techtonics) is a more non-experimental science example. So even claims about experimental science should be made with this in mind, evoking a more humble stance. Comments about CDE being a ‘fact’ or being on par with gravity are unfounded and display a profound ignorance of science and history. Such comments are not scientific, but faith based.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">So how to evaluate between the two paradigms?</span><br /><br />This is the question that matters... Controversially, Kuhn claimed that choosing between paradigms was not a rational process. Whilst not subscribing to complete relativism, I believe there is a real subjective nature between paradigms. Objective problems play a part, but how much those problems are weighted seems to be a fairly subjective decision.<br /><br />From my perspective, the cascading failure of many of the evidences used to infer CDE is a clear indication of the marginal superiority of the (admittedly immature) YEC paradigm. Chief examples are things such as embryonic recapitulation (found to be a fraud), the fossil record (Found to exhibit mostly stasis and significant convergence), the genetic evidence (Found to exhibit massive homoplasy). Update: And the <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071221094911.htm">disagreement between molecular and morphological data</a>.<br /><br />It is curious however, that even with the near monopoly of the CDE paradigm in science education in America, that only a small fraction believe it. (<a href="http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm ">CDE hovers around 10%, whilst 50+% accept YEC and the remainder Theistic evolution</a>) This certainly indicates to me, that perhaps it is CDE that is not as compelling an explanation than YEC.<br /><br />Whatever the decision, it is more appropriate to say that YEC is the “better inferred explanation” than CDE or vice versa. Such an understanding of the debate leads to a far more productive discourse and avoids the insults, derision and anger that seems to be so prevalent.<br /><br />(Note: Post updated to fix spelling errors, highlight the distinct is between experimental and non-experiment science.Alan Greyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15039909118210086629noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10999245.post-46409113471316228532008-09-29T14:23:00.002+10:002008-09-29T14:51:18.330+10:00Anti-Creationist Gets It WrongNot surprisingly, John Timmer, Ars Technica's Science Editor and PhD in Molecular and Cell Biology, <a href="http://arstechnica.com/reviews/other/discovery-textbook-review.ars/1">doesn't like</a> a new science textbook 'Explore Evolution' which was created by Intelligent Design proponents. His review goes for 4 pages, and it essentially accuses the authors of bad science, and bad motivations. Predictably, John's perceptions are largely coloured by his emotional distaste for Intelligent Design and Creation Science.<br /><br />Let me give you just one example where John either fails to understand current science or is willfully participating in a campaign of misinformation.<br /><br />From his review (page 2)- Emphasis mine<br /><blockquote><span style="font-style:italic;">Darwin's Origin of Species proposed a mechanism by which a selective pressure, acting on inherited variations, could transform a single species or bifurcate it into two distinct species. Reasoning that there was no inherent limitation to this branching process, Darwin's single illustration in the book was a tree, with existent species being derived from a single trunk. Darwin concluded that life had been initially breathed, "into a few forms or into one," and all current species were derived from that event.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Darwin's conclusion has been spectacularly confirmed in the 150 years since. The basic biochemistry of the cell is shared by all known organisms, a fact that supports a common origin, while everything from fossil evidence to modern genomic sequencing has supported the tree-like pattern of common descent within the animal kingdom.</span> There are some scientific debates remaining—some argue that horizontal gene transfer has created a web of life at the microbial level, rather than a tree—but scientists don't debate the general outlines of limited origins and organisms related through descent from a common ancestor.<br /><br />But EE, in seeking to present a case against evolution, argues that there are viable alternative models of the history of life on earth. It favors what it calls an "orchard model," one in which there are many origins of life. In the orchard, current species are the product of severely restricted variation from an undefined number of origin events. Any time a problem with evolution is discussed, a separate origin is the implicit or explicit alternative, and that undefined number of separate origins appears to be very, very large. If that sounds familiar, it should—it's essentially biblical special creation of kinds.<br /><br />So has creationism's orchard model achieved a sudden surge in scientific attention? Again, turning to PubMed, the answer is no.</span></blockquote><br /><br />Thankfully, I have been recently focusing on the 'tree of life' and can clearly say that current science is no way, especially not 'spectacularly' confirms the tree of life that Darwin puts forward. Timmer notes that microbes have a 'web' of life, but the problems are not just with microbes, but with all life.<br /><br />For instance, this paper: Michael J. Sanderson, “Phylogenetic Signal in the Eukaryotic Tree of Life,” <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/321/5885/121">Science</a>, 4 July 2008: Vol. 321. no. 5885, pp. 121-123, DOI: 10.1126/science.1154449.<br /><br />Using the broad number of animal genomes available, Sanderson set very low criteria for inferring a genetic relationship between species and found that he could only infer a relationship 12% of the time. 12%! With low standards. Sanderson (a committed evolutionist who believes there must be such relationships), suggested a solution....he needs more data!<br /><br />Timmer obviously didn't talk to Sanderson, otherwise he would know his claims of spectacular confirmation are spectacularly wrong. Don't count on many of Timmer's readers to be up to date on the science, so you expect willing evolutionists everywhere to parrot his claim.<br /><br />Timmer also, in looking for 'orchards' has not read this paper: Antonis Rokas, Sean B. Carroll, “Bushes in the Tree of Life,” <a href="http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.0040352">Public Library of Science Biology</a>, 4(11): e352. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0040352.<br /><br />In this paper the authors note that genetic investigation for the 'tree of life' has instead produced multiple bushes of life. It even makes the situation seem hopeless as homoplasy (i.e. convergent evolution) is a pervasive influence, thus making it nearly impossible to get a true relationship. Even in reviewing 100 genes of Human and Chimp DNA, they could only find support for a relationship in 55% of the cases. <br /><br />The DNA says no! Pity John Timmer hasn't bothered to read the current literature before making bold claims....Alan Greyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15039909118210086629noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10999245.post-85071071790607902112008-09-02T14:21:00.003+10:002008-09-02T14:32:37.314+10:00How to lie in video<a href="http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/31107_Zombie-_Anatomy_of_a_Video_-_Democratic_Convention_2008">Zombie has a post up</a> showing indepth how a video supposedly showing the cruel and violent police assaulting and arresting a peaceful protester is essentially a lying piece of propaganda.<br /><blockquote><span style="font-style:italic;">How the media and left-wing blogs combined to create a police scandal out of thin air<br /><br />The real story behind the Alicia Forrest/Carlo Garcia arrests.<br /><br />On Tuesday, August 27, during the Democratic National Convention in Denver, I witnessed an incident that seemed at the time to be rather minor, but which over the subsequent days turned into a major scandal — primarily due to a video posted online by the Rocky Mountain News. This carefully edited video shows Officer Stewart of the Denver Police knocking Alicia Forrest of Code Pink to the ground during a protest, and then, after an edit, Forrest getting arrested by other officers. This video has created a firestorm among left-wing blogs, and also engendered many follow-up stories in the Denver Post, the Rocky Mountain News, Westword, and other mainstream Denver media outlets.</span></blockquote>Check out the voluminous amount of context Zombie provides to show how the protester was indeed breaking the law and trying to provoke a reaction that could be creatively edited to slander the police.<br /><br />One thing that Zombie gets wrong though, is that he says the police hit the woman on the head or sunglasses <br /><span style="font-style:italic;">Here’s the contextless video again. You can hear Forrest saying “%#&!$’ do it again!”, and then Stewart taking her up on her offer and saying “Back it up, bitch!” as he clonks her on the forehead or on the sunglasses, causing her to fall backwards. The “crack” you hear is not the sound of his baton on her skull, but rather that of her pink plastic bullhorn hitting the pavement and all its batteries falling out.<blockquote></blockquote></span><br />Carefully watch the video on the site again though, and you can see the officer, using the full length of the baton in a horizontal position to shove the protester backwards, actually connects with her upper body, nowhere near her head.<br /><br />The protester then clearly stage manages her 'fall' (probably learned by watching soccer matches) and pretends to be stunned by the blow and fall.Alan Greyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15039909118210086629noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10999245.post-14666601053979667982008-07-13T15:42:00.004+10:002008-12-10T12:45:16.253+10:00CSIRO blocks for Rudd and AGWCSIRO came out in the last week with a scare campaign about the price of oil that was gleefully repeated over and over in the <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/peak-oil-petrol-to-reach-8-a-litre/2008/07/10/1215658037458.html">news media</a>.<blockquote><span style="font-style: italic;">PETROL could hit $8 a litre within a decade as oil production begins to dwindle and demand continues to soar, a CSIRO study to be released today says.<br /><br />The study, Fuel For Thought, warns this would add up to $220 a week to the cost of running a medium-sized passenger vehicle by 2018, resulting in severe social and economic consequences.</span></blockquote>Their solution? The already fatal idea of biofuels, currently causing massive food shortages in a country near you. (Although CSIRO want to use biofuels that don't reduce food production....a self-refuting notion)<br /><br />But what really struck me was how this report was really just running interference for Kevin Rudd and the global warming delusion crowd.<br /><br />As almost every news article talked about (ergo the comment was in the CSIRO <a href="http://www.csiro.gov.au/news/FuelForThoughtReport.html">press release</a>), how Kevin Rudd's emission trading scheme (ETS) would add 10 to 25 cents to the cost of fuel.<br /><br />See...the ETS isn't really that bad (comparing a $6.50 rise to a mere 10 to 25 cents)....Clearly, the CSIRO wants everyone to get behind the delusionists ETS.<br /><br />The problem is, CSIRO is relying on peak oil rubbish, which is claiming the world is going to run out of oil. It was rubbish back in 1956 when it first came about, and it is rubbish now.<br /><br />The reason peak oil is rubbish, is that there are many many more sources of oil that are untapped.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgCJ8MIQUp8J4uypGu2wLfQDkE8yqZ04FL0pm3ykhyphenhyphenPv362ClA5yYqOYSVhAAB4S4d0lewBwBTjGCvfXaEOzmoulneFsJz8OZMC8xViQB6WtY4ATI0BJXmTc5Hx0TevpMplroDK/s1600-h/ShaleOilChart31.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgCJ8MIQUp8J4uypGu2wLfQDkE8yqZ04FL0pm3ykhyphenhyphenPv362ClA5yYqOYSVhAAB4S4d0lewBwBTjGCvfXaEOzmoulneFsJz8OZMC8xViQB6WtY4ATI0BJXmTc5Hx0TevpMplroDK/s320/ShaleOilChart31.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5222372872281818914" border="0" /></a>As this graph (HT: <a href="http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/07/020980.php">Powerline</a>) from the Institute of Energy Research shows, the US alone has vastly more shale oil reserves than the normal oil reserves available today. Only a few years ago, it was thought that shale oil could be retrieved at a cost of $40 a barrel. Compared with todays prices of $140 a barrel, this is economically viable and would actually reduce petrol prices.<br /><br />The real problem is that for years, environmentalists have pressured the U.S. into not developing ANY of it's undeveloped oil reserves, shale oil or not.<br /><br />The upshot is that the CSIRO is using dodgey science (unsurprising for global warming delusionists) in order to block for Kevin Rudd, so that his ETS is not seen as a large cost to consumers.Alan Greyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15039909118210086629noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10999245.post-20645247457108125772008-07-09T08:47:00.002+10:002008-07-09T08:55:35.615+10:00Ocean Acidification - Propaganda and LiesThere has been a rash of discussion about Ocean Acidification due to increased CO2 concentrations, and how this will damage coral and other sea life.<br /><br />William Briggs has a good discussion of how this 'new' scare tactic is just <a href="http://wmbriggs.com/blog/2008/07/04/at-least-theyre-admitting-it/">propaganda</a>. (forgetting that the ocean is actually on the base side of the scale, and ocean 'acidification' is actually making the water more neutral)<br /><blockquote><span style="font-style:italic;">Here’s the problem. You are a scientist, working on measuring the levels of aragonite in ocean water. It’s not very sexy and nobody beyond a small cadre seems to care. But it’s grant time and you and your team are “figuring out how to make the issue more potent” so that you can bring in the bucks.<br /><br />How do you do it?<br /><br />The first thing you should immediately consider these days is “turning up the heat on the issue through the media.” However, convening a press conference on “The Importance of Aragonite in Ocean Water” is unlikely to interest even the New York Times.<br /><br />You need to be clever. Your job in “expanding awareness” has to start with a snappier moniker. You need a term that is “easy to comprehend” and, if you’re lucky, sounds “alarming.”<br /><br />Renaming is thus “a critical step.” </span></blockquote><br /><br />Now, Jennifer Marohasy has gotten some <a href="http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/003220.html">photographic research</a> showing teeming coral reefs and sea life right next to an almost pure CO2 source.<blockquote><span style="font-style:italic;"></span></blockquote>.<br /><br />So, scare words and incorrect conclusions. Sounds like most of the global warming alarmists 'science'Alan Greyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15039909118210086629noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10999245.post-31911163995508605242008-06-16T11:46:00.002+10:002008-06-16T11:57:42.954+10:00EU Carbon Trading Scheme - Little economic impact. No Effect.Brilliant MIT scholars have assured us that the European Union's Carbon emissions trading scheme has been <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080610154749.htm">working with limited economic impact</a>. <blockquote><span style="font-style:italic;">For the past three years, the European Union has been operating the world's largest emissions trading system and the first system to limit and to trade carbon dioxide emissions. An MIT analysis of this initial "trial" phase finds that—despite its hasty adoption and somewhat rocky beginning—the European Union cap-and-trade system has operated well and has had little or no negative impact on the overall EU economy.</span></blockquote><br /><br />Let's see how that trading scheme has impacted the EU's efforts at r<a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601101&sid=akEM_x0ximjk&refer=japan">eaching their Kyoto targeted</a> emission reductions...<blockquote><span style="font-style:italic;">Japan, Italy and Spain face payments of as much as $33 billion combined for failing to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions as promised under the Kyoto treaty.<br /><br />The three countries are the worst performers among 36 nations that agreed to curb carbon dioxide gases that cause climate change. The 1997 Kyoto accord designed to slow global warming demands that polluting nations buy credits for their excess emissions from other industrial polluters or investors.</span></blockquote><br /><br />Yep...that scheme is working well....Alan Greyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15039909118210086629noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10999245.post-63364145341103345212008-06-11T08:32:00.002+10:002008-06-11T08:41:36.395+10:00Moronic Government ScienceNews has an article saying that the government committee is ready to give licenses to <a href="http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23828715-5014717,00.html">clone humans</a> to two research groups who have also applied for million dollar funding.<br /><br />This is the stupidest thing ever. The government has already wasted millions of dollars in red tape to green light a process (Embryonic Stem Cell Research) that has produced zero therapeutic applications compared with adult stem cells (which has around 70 therapeutic applications and counting already).<br /><br />Worse than this, techniques have already been found to turn adult stem cells into stem cells that have all the flexibility of embryonic stem cells, thus avoiding a costly and difficult procedure and being able to use cells from a patients own body, avoiding any cell rejection issues.<br /><br />This is on top of the immorality of creating human life to harvest cells and then discard that life. Involuntary human experimentation is an obvious evil.<br /><br />So, the government has chosen a process that fails morally, scientifically and monetarily. It's a pity we don't have a three strike rule for politicians.Alan Greyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15039909118210086629noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10999245.post-13520404788653717042008-05-13T19:33:00.003+10:002010-04-21T09:47:19.678+10:00The Story of Stuff - Another Error Ridden Propaganda PieceA friend emailed me through a link to 'The Story of Stuff' (TSOS) which after having the unfortunate tenacity to watch, and after I stopped retching, I decided to look into a couple of the 'facts' so blithely proclaimed in this anti-capitalistic, 'progressive' mockumentary.<br />
<br />
Whilst I might be tempted to check all of the claims made in the film, I'll just start with a couple of early claims....<br />
<br />
1) America spends over half of it's budget/tax on the military.<br />
<br />
A quick <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_the_United_States">look at wikipedia</a> shows that this is obviously wrong. (Scroll down to 'How Congress Spends' diagram) Health and Human services spends more, and also increased more in the last year, so there isn't even a trend towards spending half the budget.<br />
<br />
2) Around half of the top 100 budgets/sized organisations are companies (With TSOS so unbiasedly picturing the small government man polishing the shoes of the much larger company man)<br />
<br />
CNN lists the <a href="http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/global500/2007/full_list/index.html">top 500 companies</a> and the CIA lists the <a href="https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2001rank.html">GDP of every county</a>. Whilst remembering that there are not that many countries (the 100th ranked country has a GDP of only 35 billion - so really this is just a propaganda claim anyways), a quick squiz at both charts show just how wrong TSOS is. The 66th top country has a GDP of 98 billion, and the 34th top company has a revenue of 97.5 billion. Making the split 66/34, not 51/49 as TSOS makes out. <br />
<br />
And this is just the first two factual claims of a one-sided propaganda piece.<br />
<br />
If you are looking for education, not indoctrination, ignore the story of stuff.<br />
<br />
<b>Update: </b> Lee Doren has created <a href="http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ldoren/2010/04/20/debunking-the-story-of-stuff-part-1/">a comprehensive rebuttal</a> of The Story of Stuff's errors and propaganda. Be Sure to <a href="http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ldoren/2010/04/20/debunking-the-story-of-stuff-part-1/">check it out</a>.Alan Greyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15039909118210086629noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10999245.post-72683535669900418852008-05-12T22:25:00.003+10:002008-05-12T22:34:07.270+10:00Bad Arguments in Global WarmingIn An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore makes the claim that Big Oil buying scientists is the only reason there are any scientists who are man made global warming skeptics. Other global warming scaremongers echo this cry..."the debate is over - except for a fringe group of scientists funded by Big Oil." ..."It was just the same with smoking and health".<br /><br />The problem with this attempt to link the tobacco companies attempted perversion of science with global warming realists is this. Tobacco had no where to go for profit....Oil companies can always diversify into 'clean energy' and carbon trading (Much like Al Gore is using the global warming scare to rake in hundreds of millions of dollars)<br /><br />It comes as no surprise then, that Enron, a huge Oil/Natural Gas company, <a href="http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA384.html">financed a lot of attempts to create a global warming consensus</a>. It seems 'Big Oil' does have a hand in the debate, but it is on the side of the alarmists. (And yes...NASA scientist James Hansen worked as a consultant to Enron in their efforts to make billions of carbon trading and kyoto).<br /><br />So...whose science is dodgey now?Alan Greyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15039909118210086629noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10999245.post-24705044983714624262008-05-12T12:04:00.002+10:002008-05-12T12:13:15.914+10:00Why Man-Made Global Warming is not ScienceWith pseudo-science, you commonly see failed predictions ignored. Falsifiability is thrown out the window, not because of some limitation of method, but because it is inconvenient.<br /><br />A recent presentation by scientists to the European Geosciences Union General Assembly certainly shows that the predictions of the IPCC do not model reality, and thus <a href="http://www.itia.ntua.gr/getfile/850/2/documents/2008EGU_ClimatePredictionPr.pdf">fail scientifically</a>. <br /><br />Even though man-made global warming (AGW) is such an important claim, this simple verification process has not really been undertaken previously, another indication that the AGW claims are not about science, but an irrational belief.Alan Greyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15039909118210086629noreply@blogger.com0