By Tom Rhodes, 7/10/2020
You'll note the left keeps talking about power, and empowering, etc. They never talk about, nor promote liberty and freedom. They are openly attacking freedom of speech, they want the left to be able to censor those who dare speak something the left doesn't approve, and completely cancel any who dare speak against the left.
The hate free speech, as they realize the if they have the power to control speech, they have power over the masses. They don't want liberty, equality, and freedom for everybody equally, they simply want power.
They have finally succeeded in ending valid scientific research. Getting scientists whose findings don't support their narative fired. So scientists now know that if they do research, it doesn't matter what the actual data says, or with the objective truth exposes, their results must support the mob or the scientist will be canceled.
After the Wall Street Journal that cited the study the mob attacked at UM were “complications” on campus and outraged wokesters demanded that the profs be flogged, or something else terrible.
Professor Hsu told the WSJ: “The MSU professor who conducted that work, psychologist Joe Cesario, tells me that ‘we had no idea what the data was going to be, what the outcome was going to be, before we did this study.’ Mr. Cesario has collected evidence from a simulator and from real-world interactions between police and citizens. He concluded that ‘the nature of the interaction really matters the most, and officers were not more likely to be ready to shoot upon encountering a black versus white citizen.’ Pofessor Hsu has been Canceled.
Michigan State University leaders have successfully pressured Stephen Hsu to resign from his position as vice president of research and innovation after the Graduate Employees Union launched a campaign to oust him from his role.
Once the professor was forced out, the other scientists who worked on the paper are trying to get the paper withdrawn to save their carriers.
The left wants a war against objective truth, and freedom of speech, because both get in the way of them being in power.
Remember all it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to say and do nothing. This shows that just doing your job and telling the truth will get you attacked by the mob.
If you tolerate SJW's at work, and don't speak up, and keep your head down, just hope and pray, you don't have to tell the truth that the mob doesn't like, or worse yet, you were merely on a "team" that produced results the mob didn't want, or didn't want others to know about. You too will be canceled.
Showing posts with label Science. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Science. Show all posts
Friday, July 10, 2020
Saturday, June 6, 2020
Science says there multiple human "races" and culture is genetic too.
By Tom Rhodes 6/6/2020
From the article in the Huffington Post titled, "What Scientists Mean When They Say ‘Race’ Is Not Genetic", we read:
This is bullshit and not scientific. Let's use dogs as an example, and reword it that assertion using terms people associate with dogs.
Absolutely absurd, when talking about different breeds of dogs, we can make good predictions not only on such clinical predictions as average age, size, speed, strength, susceptibility to certain disease, and so on, we can also make good predictions on temperament, intelligence, and behavior. Implying that race isn't a good indicator to make decisions because it is not a perfect predictor of those qualities, is like saying it's dumb to select a breed of dog because nobody can predict that dog's temperament etc.
All dogs are from the species called Canis lupus, a subspecies of wolf. The wolf, Canis lupus, has about 40 subspecies. Canis lupus familiaris. is the subspecies of wolf we call dogs.
The races of man are simplistically referred to by color, white, black, yellow, some add brown and red. The scientific fact is they are all subspecies of homo sapiens
even culture.
How evolution is active and observable in the human population even in recent history. One could rationally conclude that the industrial revolution, was caused by evolution and a drive in accelerated evolution, and the reasons some races had it and others never did, are evolutionary driven by natural selection and environmental pressures.
The fact that Time Magazine published what is about as politically incorrect an article as you can read is amazing. About as non-PC as you can get, but rational, measurable and scientific. "New analyses of the human genome have established that human evolution has been recent, copious, and regional."
Read it and rationally not emotionally look at the evidence, and history is pretty clear. Not only are the races genetically distinct, but so are cultures.
From the article in the Huffington Post titled, "What Scientists Mean When They Say ‘Race’ Is Not Genetic", we read:
Genetic methods do not support the classification of humans into discrete races, [and] racial assumptions are not good biological guideposts. Races are not genetically homogeneous and lack clear-cut genetic boundaries. And because of this, using race as a proxy to make clinical predictions is about probability.
This is bullshit and not scientific. Let's use dogs as an example, and reword it that assertion using terms people associate with dogs.
Genetic methods do not support the classification of dogs into discrete breeds, [and] breed assumptions are not good biological guideposts. Breeds are not genetically homogeneous and lack clear-cut genetic boundaries. And because there are more mutts than purebreds, using breed as a proxy to make clinical predictions is about probability.
Absolutely absurd, when talking about different breeds of dogs, we can make good predictions not only on such clinical predictions as average age, size, speed, strength, susceptibility to certain disease, and so on, we can also make good predictions on temperament, intelligence, and behavior. Implying that race isn't a good indicator to make decisions because it is not a perfect predictor of those qualities, is like saying it's dumb to select a breed of dog because nobody can predict that dog's temperament etc.
All dogs are from the species called Canis lupus, a subspecies of wolf. The wolf, Canis lupus, has about 40 subspecies. Canis lupus familiaris. is the subspecies of wolf we call dogs.
The races of man are simplistically referred to by color, white, black, yellow, some add brown and red. The scientific fact is they are all subspecies of homo sapiens
Analysis of genomes from around the world establishes that there is a biological basis for race, despite the official statements to the contrary of leading social science organizations. An illustration of the point is the fact that with mixed race populations, such as African Americans, geneticists can now track along an individual’s genome, and assign each segment to an African or European ancestor, an exercise that would be impossible if race did not have some basis in biological reality.Although it is not politically correct, the science is clear, although lots of people are mutts, that does not change the fact that the races of man genetically distinct, and we can observe and see measurable differences in not only color, but races are predictive estimating average; size, speed, strength, IQ, temperament, behavior, immune systems, and
How evolution is active and observable in the human population even in recent history. One could rationally conclude that the industrial revolution, was caused by evolution and a drive in accelerated evolution, and the reasons some races had it and others never did, are evolutionary driven by natural selection and environmental pressures.
The fact that Time Magazine published what is about as politically incorrect an article as you can read is amazing. About as non-PC as you can get, but rational, measurable and scientific. "New analyses of the human genome have established that human evolution has been recent, copious, and regional."
Read it and rationally not emotionally look at the evidence, and history is pretty clear. Not only are the races genetically distinct, but so are cultures.
Thursday, October 18, 2018
Understand Entropy and You Understand Me
Life the World and Everything are Defined by the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
By Tom Rhodes, 10/18/2018
If you understand Newton’s Second law of Thermodynamics, then you need all you need to know about me, and you probably have a better more accurate understanding the principles of the Libertarian Party.
I understand and use the scientific method as the best way to understand nature and physical existence. Human history and all scientific research has proven that Newton's Second Law of thermodynamics is true in physical science and for all manmade systems both physical and relational. The second laws fundamentally states: All changes occur such that at least some energy disperses: the total concentrated or organized energy of the universe decreases, the total diffuse or disorganized energy of the universe increases. Entropy measures the amount of order in a system and the universe.
Entropy can never decrease spontaneously. Unless purposeful controlled energy, aka work, is introduced into a system, entropy increases. All systems naturally go from order to disorder. Applied to life, the fundamental concept of entropy is that if you don’t take care of something (work on it) it turns to shit (disorder).
I've seen the effect of entropy in my own life, if you look you can see how entropy affects yours. I use practical application of this scientific principle to better understand my life, and to make my life better. I work on the principle that what I don't purposefully maintain will deteriorate.
Absent purposeful repair and attention my property deteriorates. ( guns rust, tires go flat, roofs leak, yard gets overgrown, pool turns green, carbs get gummed up, hard drives get fragmented, the list is endless)
Absent purposeful exercise my body deteriorates.
Absent purposeful exercise my mind deteriorates.
Absent purposeful practice my skills deteriorate.
Absent purposeful prayer and worship my soul deteriorates.
Absent purposeful time spent with others my relationship with them deteriorates.
Absent purposeful vigilance my liberty deteriorates.
Absent purposeful participation my culture deteriorates.
The Law of Entropy, is not compromising, has no feeling, and is an absolute LAW of Nature. To accomplish anything you must add purposeful work. You cannot coast through life without purpose and accomplish much. Randomly putting energy into something without purpose will only add chaos to your life. Just "doing" something won't fix anything. A forest fire adds lots of energy to the woods, but it won't turn a single tree into table. To make a table from a tree, takes purposeful ordered energy in the form of skilled work. Absent intelligent application of controlled amounts of energy, nature will always create more disorder.
I value accomplishment, because every human being on the planet can accomplish things in proportion to the abilities they possess, if they will just do what has proven to be effective. Because not every person has the same natural abilities, and not every person will choose to purposefully put in the same work, the outcomes for everybody will be different. To be just and honorable, we must insure that opportunities must be equal, but because of entropy, we must accept the reality that outcomes will be different. The reality is entropy - the inevitable decline into disorder, built into the fabric of the universe – is the true nemesis to what I can accomplish.
Because I believe in the scientific method, I value logic over feelings and emotion. This means that I believe that libertarian political ideas are the best political expression of Christian values and where implemented has produced more order (less chaos) and more good for more people than any other political ideology every devised by man. This means that I also reject both socialism and anarchy as they have repeatedly proven to increase entropy, and bring not only chaos but privation to the people subject to their implementation. As such your assertion that is contrary to evidence will dismissed.
I like good food, strong drink, well-crafted motorcycles and guns, good writing, talented musicianship, thoughtful art, I appreciate and respect both the talent God gave and effort it takes to create those things. I appreciate beautiful women, femininity and masculinity, and know the difference.
I understand you may have a different opinions about these things, and I respect your opinions at precisely the same level of enthusiasm with which your respect mine.
By Tom Rhodes, 10/18/2018
If you understand Newton’s Second law of Thermodynamics, then you need all you need to know about me, and you probably have a better more accurate understanding the principles of the Libertarian Party.
I understand and use the scientific method as the best way to understand nature and physical existence. Human history and all scientific research has proven that Newton's Second Law of thermodynamics is true in physical science and for all manmade systems both physical and relational. The second laws fundamentally states: All changes occur such that at least some energy disperses: the total concentrated or organized energy of the universe decreases, the total diffuse or disorganized energy of the universe increases. Entropy measures the amount of order in a system and the universe.
Entropy can never decrease spontaneously. Unless purposeful controlled energy, aka work, is introduced into a system, entropy increases. All systems naturally go from order to disorder. Applied to life, the fundamental concept of entropy is that if you don’t take care of something (work on it) it turns to shit (disorder).
I've seen the effect of entropy in my own life, if you look you can see how entropy affects yours. I use practical application of this scientific principle to better understand my life, and to make my life better. I work on the principle that what I don't purposefully maintain will deteriorate.
The Law of Entropy, is not compromising, has no feeling, and is an absolute LAW of Nature. To accomplish anything you must add purposeful work. You cannot coast through life without purpose and accomplish much. Randomly putting energy into something without purpose will only add chaos to your life. Just "doing" something won't fix anything. A forest fire adds lots of energy to the woods, but it won't turn a single tree into table. To make a table from a tree, takes purposeful ordered energy in the form of skilled work. Absent intelligent application of controlled amounts of energy, nature will always create more disorder.
I value accomplishment, because every human being on the planet can accomplish things in proportion to the abilities they possess, if they will just do what has proven to be effective. Because not every person has the same natural abilities, and not every person will choose to purposefully put in the same work, the outcomes for everybody will be different. To be just and honorable, we must insure that opportunities must be equal, but because of entropy, we must accept the reality that outcomes will be different. The reality is entropy - the inevitable decline into disorder, built into the fabric of the universe – is the true nemesis to what I can accomplish.
Because I believe in the scientific method, I value logic over feelings and emotion. This means that I believe that libertarian political ideas are the best political expression of Christian values and where implemented has produced more order (less chaos) and more good for more people than any other political ideology every devised by man. This means that I also reject both socialism and anarchy as they have repeatedly proven to increase entropy, and bring not only chaos but privation to the people subject to their implementation. As such your assertion that is contrary to evidence will dismissed.
I like good food, strong drink, well-crafted motorcycles and guns, good writing, talented musicianship, thoughtful art, I appreciate and respect both the talent God gave and effort it takes to create those things. I appreciate beautiful women, femininity and masculinity, and know the difference.
I understand you may have a different opinions about these things, and I respect your opinions at precisely the same level of enthusiasm with which your respect mine.
Monday, September 10, 2018
Science and Math Must Not Be Debated
By Tom Rhodes, 9/10/2018
Today discussing, much less debating, observable scientific and mathematical truths is not allowed by the political left, who seek to suppress critical thinking and science, if that science exposes objective truth that doesn't support a feminist/globalist/leftist agenda.
I taught high school chemistry for a few years. Of the hundreds of students I taught some were very smart, the overwhelming majority were average, and some were .. to be blunt ... dumb. There is no teacher, who's taught for any length of time, that can't identify the very bright and dumb from the overall pack of kids they teach. They also know the grades the kids earn don't always match the intelligence of the kids they teach. They all can tell you of students who were very bright, but got bad grades because they chose not to put in any effort, and they can tell of dumb students who chose to work hard and got good grades.
Although very few, there were some kids who basic chemistry was just beyond their intellectual ability. High school chemistry isn't that hard, but it does require critical thinking and application of abstract concepts. I can say that I had far more truly intellectually limited students, who shouldn't have been in a chemistry class in the first place, who were boys than girls. Probably 4:1 dumb boys to dumb girls.
I only taught high school chemistry for 3 years so only taught about 750 different students. There were a few, very few, truly extremely intelligent students, both boys and girls, but like the truly intellectually challenged not very many. To be honest there were more boys than girls that were at the top end of the intelligence spectrum, about 3:1.
No teacher, if honest, wouldn't tell you the same thing. The overwhelming majority of students are average, but at the extreme ends of dumb and super smart there are more boys than girls. This is a repeatedly observed and measured phenomenon that is not politically correct. It can and has been mathematically modeled and compared to evolutionary differences in other animals. Male mammals have far more variability in virtually every measured aspect than females.
This is a scientific fact but even discussing mathematical models of hypothetical sex differences is forbidden if the results of such models might be interpreted as conflicting with feminist orthodoxy. As a leftist friend of mine once said "Why bother reporting scientific data, even if it is right, if the results are not politically acceptable?"
Feminists in the past couple of weeks have successfully been able to bully an obscure math journal, and have a peer reviewed paper, that is unquestionably solid in it's research methodology and application of mathematics, to be retracted after it was published because the results might be interpreted to support the idea that there are differences between men and women that might result in less women at the top of some professions.
It seems to me that an appropriate response of the bullying that resulted in obscure math journals pulling the research is to get the paper as wide a circulation as possible, and create a Streisand effect.
Here is the abstract:
Today discussing, much less debating, observable scientific and mathematical truths is not allowed by the political left, who seek to suppress critical thinking and science, if that science exposes objective truth that doesn't support a feminist/globalist/leftist agenda.
I taught high school chemistry for a few years. Of the hundreds of students I taught some were very smart, the overwhelming majority were average, and some were .. to be blunt ... dumb. There is no teacher, who's taught for any length of time, that can't identify the very bright and dumb from the overall pack of kids they teach. They also know the grades the kids earn don't always match the intelligence of the kids they teach. They all can tell you of students who were very bright, but got bad grades because they chose not to put in any effort, and they can tell of dumb students who chose to work hard and got good grades.
Although very few, there were some kids who basic chemistry was just beyond their intellectual ability. High school chemistry isn't that hard, but it does require critical thinking and application of abstract concepts. I can say that I had far more truly intellectually limited students, who shouldn't have been in a chemistry class in the first place, who were boys than girls. Probably 4:1 dumb boys to dumb girls.
I only taught high school chemistry for 3 years so only taught about 750 different students. There were a few, very few, truly extremely intelligent students, both boys and girls, but like the truly intellectually challenged not very many. To be honest there were more boys than girls that were at the top end of the intelligence spectrum, about 3:1.
No teacher, if honest, wouldn't tell you the same thing. The overwhelming majority of students are average, but at the extreme ends of dumb and super smart there are more boys than girls. This is a repeatedly observed and measured phenomenon that is not politically correct. It can and has been mathematically modeled and compared to evolutionary differences in other animals. Male mammals have far more variability in virtually every measured aspect than females.
This is a scientific fact but even discussing mathematical models of hypothetical sex differences is forbidden if the results of such models might be interpreted as conflicting with feminist orthodoxy. As a leftist friend of mine once said "Why bother reporting scientific data, even if it is right, if the results are not politically acceptable?"
Feminists in the past couple of weeks have successfully been able to bully an obscure math journal, and have a peer reviewed paper, that is unquestionably solid in it's research methodology and application of mathematics, to be retracted after it was published because the results might be interpreted to support the idea that there are differences between men and women that might result in less women at the top of some professions.
It seems to me that an appropriate response of the bullying that resulted in obscure math journals pulling the research is to get the paper as wide a circulation as possible, and create a Streisand effect.
Here is the abstract:
An elementary mathematical theory based on "selectivity" is proposed to address a question raised by Charles Darwin, namely, how one gender of a sexually dimorphic species might tend to evolve with greater variability than the other gender. Briefly, the theory says that if one sex is relatively selective then from one generation to the next, more variable subpopulations of the opposite sex will tend to prevail over those with lesser variability; and conversely, if a sex is relatively non-selective, then less variable subpopulations of the opposite sex will tend to prevail over those with greater variability. This theory makes no assumptions about differences in means between the sexes, nor does it presume that one sex is selective and the other non-selective. Two mathematical models are presented: a discrete-time one-step statistical model using normally distributed fitness values; and a continuous-time deterministic model using exponentially distributed fitness levels.Read the entire paper here: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.04184.pdf
Monday, December 11, 2017
The MSM hides Junk Science.
by Tom Rhodes, 12/11/2017
Remember last years "scientists discover micro-plastics are evil" article. Why didn't the retraction of the reseach in Science, make as big a splash in the news. The fact is the environmentalist scientists didn’t get the results they want so just make shit up to promote the evils of man on the environment.
“Oona Lönnstedt and Peter Eklöv are guilty of misconduct in research, Eklöv in that he has violated the regulations on ethical approval for animal experimentation, and Lönnstedt in that she has violated the regulations on ethical approval for animal experimentation and because the experiments were not conducted as described in the article in the scholarly journal and are therefore fabricated,” Uppsala announced in their final report.
When looking at any scientific findings use the old addage Follow the money; if government pays for research and the results say government needs more control; or if an environmental group pays for research that says man should be restricted from using something; it should be treated like Exxon saying burning fossil fuels is good, or Monsanto researc saying RoundUp is safe, or GM saying the Corvair is a safe car.
Science is actually simple, and a clear indicator that you should doubt the results some scientist is claiming is: if the raw data and calculations are not shared, and the experiment hasn't been repeated, then it's Junk Science and not reliable.
Remember last years "scientists discover micro-plastics are evil" article. Why didn't the retraction of the reseach in Science, make as big a splash in the news. The fact is the environmentalist scientists didn’t get the results they want so just make shit up to promote the evils of man on the environment.
“Oona Lönnstedt and Peter Eklöv are guilty of misconduct in research, Eklöv in that he has violated the regulations on ethical approval for animal experimentation, and Lönnstedt in that she has violated the regulations on ethical approval for animal experimentation and because the experiments were not conducted as described in the article in the scholarly journal and are therefore fabricated,” Uppsala announced in their final report.
When looking at any scientific findings use the old addage Follow the money; if government pays for research and the results say government needs more control; or if an environmental group pays for research that says man should be restricted from using something; it should be treated like Exxon saying burning fossil fuels is good, or Monsanto researc saying RoundUp is safe, or GM saying the Corvair is a safe car.
Science is actually simple, and a clear indicator that you should doubt the results some scientist is claiming is: if the raw data and calculations are not shared, and the experiment hasn't been repeated, then it's Junk Science and not reliable.
Tuesday, September 19, 2017
Climate Alarmism, A Religious Tenant of Totalitarian Leftists
By Tom Rhodes, 9/19/2017
For people on the left, left-wing issues are not political issues; they are religious issues. Consider global warming. To leftists it is an existential issue. The reason they want to criminally charge those don't accept man is causing catastrophic climate change is those who oppose their beliefs are heretics. The atheistic left is even more devout in their condemnation of heretical views. Any science or research that doesn't support their religious view of man being bad and earth being good must not be allowed. The failure of all the "scientific" models in temperature predictions is not a repudiation of their beliefs. The failure of virtually every prediction they have made concerning climate over the past 50 years is irrelevant, just as is the failure of all of the predictions of Armageddon made by religious zealots doesn’t diminish the faith of believers. They have faith that man is causing the destruction of the earth and therefore man’s actions should be controlled and limited by the enlightened, and no amount of facts will sway their faith.
Man-caused climate change is questioned because there is indisputable scientific evidence this isn’t the Earth’s first rodeo when it comes to cyclical cooling and warming. The Earth experienced periods of glaciation followed by melting long before Leonardo DiCaprio’s excessive use of private jets and the construction of Al Gore’s energy devouring Nashville dream home. The statistical reality is man's contribution to climate change is so smaller than the margin of error in the analysis we can do. But that doesn't fit into the religious beliefs of the left.
A primary tenant of leftists is that humans are a bad evil force that is harming mother nature. Katie Herzog at Grist.com clearly and plainly stated this religious tenant of leftism, writing on January 16, 2015, “If this planet is to survive the scourge that is humanity, we all have to stop reproducing. Yes, all of us. In that spirit, I propose we … sterilize every human male on his 10th birthday.” Granted most leftists don’t go to this absurd extreme, but then most Christians didn’t follow Jim Jones and drink the Kool-Aid either.
Climate Alarmism is a tenant of leftist faith and the left is zealous about it to the point of extremism, like Islamist they will use violence and seek to criminalize criticism of their faith. Like Islamists they seek to dehumanize all who don’t share their belief, so that they can feel no guilt to murdering, attacking, condemning, and taking away the rights of non-believers. Whom they feel don’t have the same rights because they are less than human. The call to punish “climate change deniers” is the lefts religious zealotry to gain control of our lives.
The United Nations (via UNEP), is pushing international judges to criminalize any climate change belief contrary to their own. Professor Richard Parncutt has called for the execution of prominent “GW deniers.” Climate Progress Editor Joe Romm called for deniers to be strangled in their beds. James Hansen, who has headed NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, has likewise called for trials of global warming deniers. There is a very long list, going back decades, of leftists wanting to silence scientists and other heretics who dare question their beliefs.
The hue and cry to control us all, was once the imminent ice age, they it was called global warming, but because the climate didn’t freeze as predicted, then didn’t warm as predicted, and storms didn’t increase as predicted, etc. etc. etc., they changed their refrain from global warming to climate change. The climate change agenda is a desperate effort to gain greater control over our lives. As political commentator Henry Louis Mencken explained “the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” Leftists in their religious zeal have want the power to control the lives of others whom they feel should live as they dictate and not be given the liberty to examine the evidence and live and do what they think will best provide happiness.
Leftists religiously oppose the foundations of the USA and reject the idea that government was instituted by the mere people to protect their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They believe leftists by virtue of their superior intellect and compassion, should be able to dictate how the masses should live. Hence they seek to kill and outlaw and silence heretics that would dare question their beliefs. They are no better than Islamic terrorists, who kill those who question or criticize their beliefs.
For people on the left, left-wing issues are not political issues; they are religious issues. Consider global warming. To leftists it is an existential issue. The reason they want to criminally charge those don't accept man is causing catastrophic climate change is those who oppose their beliefs are heretics. The atheistic left is even more devout in their condemnation of heretical views. Any science or research that doesn't support their religious view of man being bad and earth being good must not be allowed. The failure of all the "scientific" models in temperature predictions is not a repudiation of their beliefs. The failure of virtually every prediction they have made concerning climate over the past 50 years is irrelevant, just as is the failure of all of the predictions of Armageddon made by religious zealots doesn’t diminish the faith of believers. They have faith that man is causing the destruction of the earth and therefore man’s actions should be controlled and limited by the enlightened, and no amount of facts will sway their faith.
Man-caused climate change is questioned because there is indisputable scientific evidence this isn’t the Earth’s first rodeo when it comes to cyclical cooling and warming. The Earth experienced periods of glaciation followed by melting long before Leonardo DiCaprio’s excessive use of private jets and the construction of Al Gore’s energy devouring Nashville dream home. The statistical reality is man's contribution to climate change is so smaller than the margin of error in the analysis we can do. But that doesn't fit into the religious beliefs of the left.
A primary tenant of leftists is that humans are a bad evil force that is harming mother nature. Katie Herzog at Grist.com clearly and plainly stated this religious tenant of leftism, writing on January 16, 2015, “If this planet is to survive the scourge that is humanity, we all have to stop reproducing. Yes, all of us. In that spirit, I propose we … sterilize every human male on his 10th birthday.” Granted most leftists don’t go to this absurd extreme, but then most Christians didn’t follow Jim Jones and drink the Kool-Aid either.
Climate Alarmism is a tenant of leftist faith and the left is zealous about it to the point of extremism, like Islamist they will use violence and seek to criminalize criticism of their faith. Like Islamists they seek to dehumanize all who don’t share their belief, so that they can feel no guilt to murdering, attacking, condemning, and taking away the rights of non-believers. Whom they feel don’t have the same rights because they are less than human. The call to punish “climate change deniers” is the lefts religious zealotry to gain control of our lives.
The United Nations (via UNEP), is pushing international judges to criminalize any climate change belief contrary to their own. Professor Richard Parncutt has called for the execution of prominent “GW deniers.” Climate Progress Editor Joe Romm called for deniers to be strangled in their beds. James Hansen, who has headed NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, has likewise called for trials of global warming deniers. There is a very long list, going back decades, of leftists wanting to silence scientists and other heretics who dare question their beliefs.
The hue and cry to control us all, was once the imminent ice age, they it was called global warming, but because the climate didn’t freeze as predicted, then didn’t warm as predicted, and storms didn’t increase as predicted, etc. etc. etc., they changed their refrain from global warming to climate change. The climate change agenda is a desperate effort to gain greater control over our lives. As political commentator Henry Louis Mencken explained “the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” Leftists in their religious zeal have want the power to control the lives of others whom they feel should live as they dictate and not be given the liberty to examine the evidence and live and do what they think will best provide happiness.
Leftists religiously oppose the foundations of the USA and reject the idea that government was instituted by the mere people to protect their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They believe leftists by virtue of their superior intellect and compassion, should be able to dictate how the masses should live. Hence they seek to kill and outlaw and silence heretics that would dare question their beliefs. They are no better than Islamic terrorists, who kill those who question or criticize their beliefs.
Tuesday, November 3, 2015
So Much for that Scientific Consensus
by Tom Rhodes, 11/3/2015
The scientific consensus on global warming simply doesn’t exist. NASA confirms Antarctic ice growing not shrinking. If global warming were a fact, and the science supported it, the Antarctic ice would not be growing and the papers and scientific research would confirm the facts.
The published papers on Antarctic ice are conflicting and not in agreement. Jay Zwally, a NASA glaciologist and lead author of the NASA paper released Friday confirms there is not scientific consensus noting that their findings compared to others are not in agreement, saying, “Our main disagreement is for East Antarctica and the interior of West Antarctica – there, we see an ice gain that exceeds the losses in the other areas.”
The so-called scientific consensus concerning global warming simply does not exist.
The scientific consensus on global warming simply doesn’t exist. NASA confirms Antarctic ice growing not shrinking. If global warming were a fact, and the science supported it, the Antarctic ice would not be growing and the papers and scientific research would confirm the facts.
The published papers on Antarctic ice are conflicting and not in agreement. Jay Zwally, a NASA glaciologist and lead author of the NASA paper released Friday confirms there is not scientific consensus noting that their findings compared to others are not in agreement, saying, “Our main disagreement is for East Antarctica and the interior of West Antarctica – there, we see an ice gain that exceeds the losses in the other areas.”
The so-called scientific consensus concerning global warming simply does not exist.
Monday, June 15, 2015
Scientists at Mayo Clinic Discover Keys to Happiness!!
By Tom Rhodes, 6/15/2015
If the 60’s cheesy version of the Masked Crusader’s youthful sidekick was analyzing the scientific “discovery” from Minnesota’s Mayo Clinic he would exclaim “Holy Plagiarism Batman.” It seems that scientists have “discovered” what Christianity, (and to be honest most religions) have been teaching for thousands of years.
It’s amazing that, what some declare as the world’s finest health institution, Minnesota’s Mayo Clinic, with pomp and circumstance announced they have “cracked the code to being happy.” They laud the fact that scientists have come up with “an actual formula for happiness – a specific recipe for lifelong contentment and joy.”
This is what the scientists and doctors at Mayo Clinic say about being happy.
Did none of these people ever go to church? There is a book that’s been around for thousands of years that teaches all these concepts. For eons it has been the Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth, it’s called the Bible. I won’t go into the various verses, but much of the Bible and the thousands of sermons preached regularly for 2000 years cover each of those points. Kind of cool that scientists have finally caught up to theologians.
This isn’t a new concept, science continues to validate ancient wisdom. The late Dr. Robert Jastrow, NASA Scientist, summed it up wonderfully saying, “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”
Next thing you know scientists will “discover” that limited government, with the rule of law, and letting people to rule themselves, leads to more prosperity for more people.
Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own (Matthew 6:34).
If the 60’s cheesy version of the Masked Crusader’s youthful sidekick was analyzing the scientific “discovery” from Minnesota’s Mayo Clinic he would exclaim “Holy Plagiarism Batman.” It seems that scientists have “discovered” what Christianity, (and to be honest most religions) have been teaching for thousands of years.
It’s amazing that, what some declare as the world’s finest health institution, Minnesota’s Mayo Clinic, with pomp and circumstance announced they have “cracked the code to being happy.” They laud the fact that scientists have come up with “an actual formula for happiness – a specific recipe for lifelong contentment and joy.”
This is what the scientists and doctors at Mayo Clinic say about being happy.
People who are happy seem to intuitively know that their happiness is the sum of their life choices, and their lives are built on the following pillars:
Devoting time to family and friends
Appreciating what they have
Maintaining an optimistic outlook
Feeling a sense of purpose
Living in the moment
Did none of these people ever go to church? There is a book that’s been around for thousands of years that teaches all these concepts. For eons it has been the Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth, it’s called the Bible. I won’t go into the various verses, but much of the Bible and the thousands of sermons preached regularly for 2000 years cover each of those points. Kind of cool that scientists have finally caught up to theologians.
This isn’t a new concept, science continues to validate ancient wisdom. The late Dr. Robert Jastrow, NASA Scientist, summed it up wonderfully saying, “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”
Next thing you know scientists will “discover” that limited government, with the rule of law, and letting people to rule themselves, leads to more prosperity for more people.
Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own (Matthew 6:34).
Tuesday, March 10, 2015
Scientists and Trust
By Tom Rhodes, 3/10/2015
I’m a scientist, I get geeky electronic magazines like, Laboratory Equipment. Today in that magazine is an article titled, Science is Not Just About Facts, which discusses the Pew Study noting scientists and the public don’t agree. Michelle Taylor, Editor-in-Chief says “That last number astonishes me more than anything else—the fact that the general public is essentially showing a lack of confidence that scientists know how to do their jobs. This signals that bridging the gap between the public and scientists is not about scientific facts or knowledge, it’s about the public’s belief system.” This is propaganda from “scientists” trying to get people to trust them and what they say is fact. It is exactly why the FCC want’s control of the Internet. The Public has the ability to actually verify and confirm what government controlled “scientists” say is fact vs actual observable fact.
Scientists are experts at lying with bad science. They quickly resort to saying that anyone who doesn't believe their fabricated data must also believe the Earth is flat. The government funds and controls most “science” and research in the world, and expect you to believe that if the research was funded by a company it’s suspect, but if funded by government it’s good. They expect you to trust the government doesn’t or wouldn’t lie to the people about science. Except the government has been caught lying over and over again, especially about science. From lying about using people as human guinea pigs, to global warming, to our food. They continually get caught lying, falsifying data, changing the figures, etc.
Citrus County Florida now has blueberry patches not citrus groves because it’s too cold to grow citrus in Citrus County FL. All the citrus groves there froze out, and it’s still too far north to effectively grow citrus trees, but we are supposed to believe global warming is a problem based on science. 48% (roughly ½) of all meteorologists don’t believe man is causing global warming, but we are supposed to ignore our observations and believe an overwhelming consensus of “scientists” that say we a global warming problem.
The problem is the internet. It has things like the Wayback Machine, which allows people to go look up stuff that used to be on the internet, and the zillion of links to original unedited source material. Consider something as simple as temperature. Several scientists have noted, and NASA has been forced to admit, that the historic temperature data has been modified to make it match computer models rather than admit the models are wrong. Specifically right after 2000, NASA and NOAA changed the historic temperature records to make the past colder and the present warmer. This GIF image shows the data before and after government scientists changed it to fit the desired result not reality.
The government can and does lie to you. Those same scientists employed by the government that are trying to tell you burning carbon fuels is causing runaway global warming are the same guys telling you that mercury in vaccines is safe to inject into our children; toxins in GMOs are safe to eat. These “scientists” have the same employer, the government. It's the same government that lied about running inhumane medical experiments on prisoners via the National Institutes of Health, then got caught and had to apologize decades later.
This is the same government that claims preppers are conspiracy theorists, while building semi-secret networks of underground bunkers and caves, while purchasing hundreds of millions of hollow point ammunition (that cannot be used in wars). The problem is getting caught, with the internet the government is getting caught sooner not decades later.
There is a charade about why the government, through the FCC, is trying to gain strict controls on the internet. Political speech and trying to keep evil big corporations from buying elections is just a red herring. The government wants to limit the information available to the common man. The internet has destroyed the ability to control the public narrative, and they want that control back. Controlling three networks and a few newspaper conglomerates was easy. Today, Snowden, you, me, and the tinfoil-hat chemtrail geek down the street, at little or no cost can report on whatever interests them. Almost everyone has a video camera in their pocket and can capture and report on government misdeeds. Just YouTube police abuse for a gazillion and 23 examples. There is not “gatekeeper” on the news. The government hates the fact that you can quickly and easily go back and find out where they are lying to you, and report on their misdeeds without any “gatekeeper” to what is and isn’t news. They miss the days when they had control so the press didn’t report President Kennedy indiscretions. Today because of Drudge and the internet, we all know about the blue dress, and the name “Monica” is a punchline for a sleazy president jokes.
The same government trying to force vaccines on everybody is the same government that purposefully injected thousands of innocent people with STD’s to do experiments and the same government that injected others with plutonium. Our government is not to be trusted. One man’s name now clearly demonstrates the depths our government will go to lie and control the masses: Snowden. Obama promised to stop spying on Americans. The truth came out and the internet combined with our constitutional rights is proving to make it very difficult for the government. Political speech is the red herring the government is using to get “net neutrality” the fact is they want control of the information you are allowed to receive and from whom. They want a gatekeeper to the internet.
So called “scientists”, and “net neutrality” are just the excuse. If the government pays for it don’t trust it. The government has routinely, over and over, proven to get things wrong, like eggs being bad for you, and margarine being more healthy than butter, but worse than often just being wrong, the government has proven repeatedly to lie to gain more power and control. If the scientific conclusion on any subject is we need more government control, regulation, limits to something, the science should be doubted. Would you trust the results of a pharmaceutical company funded tests saying drug X was safe if there was no independent tests to confirm it? Why trust government funded results that say you need to give the government more power and control without independent confirmation, especially when they get caught censoring scientists who don’t promote the government line?
Scientists have been caught routinely lying, and now lament the fact the public doesn’t agree with them. They are now campaigning to change the public’s “belief system”, not based on facts, but on “we’re the scientists, you should trust us.” The government hates the fact that today, unlike the past, we can verify. Regan’s famous “Trust by Verify” quote has new meaning, when repeatedly the government has proven that what they say cannot be verified to be true. But then you did get to keep your doctor and insurance didn’t you?
I’m a scientist, I get geeky electronic magazines like, Laboratory Equipment. Today in that magazine is an article titled, Science is Not Just About Facts, which discusses the Pew Study noting scientists and the public don’t agree. Michelle Taylor, Editor-in-Chief says “That last number astonishes me more than anything else—the fact that the general public is essentially showing a lack of confidence that scientists know how to do their jobs. This signals that bridging the gap between the public and scientists is not about scientific facts or knowledge, it’s about the public’s belief system.” This is propaganda from “scientists” trying to get people to trust them and what they say is fact. It is exactly why the FCC want’s control of the Internet. The Public has the ability to actually verify and confirm what government controlled “scientists” say is fact vs actual observable fact.
Scientists are experts at lying with bad science. They quickly resort to saying that anyone who doesn't believe their fabricated data must also believe the Earth is flat. The government funds and controls most “science” and research in the world, and expect you to believe that if the research was funded by a company it’s suspect, but if funded by government it’s good. They expect you to trust the government doesn’t or wouldn’t lie to the people about science. Except the government has been caught lying over and over again, especially about science. From lying about using people as human guinea pigs, to global warming, to our food. They continually get caught lying, falsifying data, changing the figures, etc.
Citrus County Florida now has blueberry patches not citrus groves because it’s too cold to grow citrus in Citrus County FL. All the citrus groves there froze out, and it’s still too far north to effectively grow citrus trees, but we are supposed to believe global warming is a problem based on science. 48% (roughly ½) of all meteorologists don’t believe man is causing global warming, but we are supposed to ignore our observations and believe an overwhelming consensus of “scientists” that say we a global warming problem.
The problem is the internet. It has things like the Wayback Machine, which allows people to go look up stuff that used to be on the internet, and the zillion of links to original unedited source material. Consider something as simple as temperature. Several scientists have noted, and NASA has been forced to admit, that the historic temperature data has been modified to make it match computer models rather than admit the models are wrong. Specifically right after 2000, NASA and NOAA changed the historic temperature records to make the past colder and the present warmer. This GIF image shows the data before and after government scientists changed it to fit the desired result not reality.
The government can and does lie to you. Those same scientists employed by the government that are trying to tell you burning carbon fuels is causing runaway global warming are the same guys telling you that mercury in vaccines is safe to inject into our children; toxins in GMOs are safe to eat. These “scientists” have the same employer, the government. It's the same government that lied about running inhumane medical experiments on prisoners via the National Institutes of Health, then got caught and had to apologize decades later.
This is the same government that claims preppers are conspiracy theorists, while building semi-secret networks of underground bunkers and caves, while purchasing hundreds of millions of hollow point ammunition (that cannot be used in wars). The problem is getting caught, with the internet the government is getting caught sooner not decades later.
There is a charade about why the government, through the FCC, is trying to gain strict controls on the internet. Political speech and trying to keep evil big corporations from buying elections is just a red herring. The government wants to limit the information available to the common man. The internet has destroyed the ability to control the public narrative, and they want that control back. Controlling three networks and a few newspaper conglomerates was easy. Today, Snowden, you, me, and the tinfoil-hat chemtrail geek down the street, at little or no cost can report on whatever interests them. Almost everyone has a video camera in their pocket and can capture and report on government misdeeds. Just YouTube police abuse for a gazillion and 23 examples. There is not “gatekeeper” on the news. The government hates the fact that you can quickly and easily go back and find out where they are lying to you, and report on their misdeeds without any “gatekeeper” to what is and isn’t news. They miss the days when they had control so the press didn’t report President Kennedy indiscretions. Today because of Drudge and the internet, we all know about the blue dress, and the name “Monica” is a punchline for a sleazy president jokes.
The same government trying to force vaccines on everybody is the same government that purposefully injected thousands of innocent people with STD’s to do experiments and the same government that injected others with plutonium. Our government is not to be trusted. One man’s name now clearly demonstrates the depths our government will go to lie and control the masses: Snowden. Obama promised to stop spying on Americans. The truth came out and the internet combined with our constitutional rights is proving to make it very difficult for the government. Political speech is the red herring the government is using to get “net neutrality” the fact is they want control of the information you are allowed to receive and from whom. They want a gatekeeper to the internet.
So called “scientists”, and “net neutrality” are just the excuse. If the government pays for it don’t trust it. The government has routinely, over and over, proven to get things wrong, like eggs being bad for you, and margarine being more healthy than butter, but worse than often just being wrong, the government has proven repeatedly to lie to gain more power and control. If the scientific conclusion on any subject is we need more government control, regulation, limits to something, the science should be doubted. Would you trust the results of a pharmaceutical company funded tests saying drug X was safe if there was no independent tests to confirm it? Why trust government funded results that say you need to give the government more power and control without independent confirmation, especially when they get caught censoring scientists who don’t promote the government line?
Scientists have been caught routinely lying, and now lament the fact the public doesn’t agree with them. They are now campaigning to change the public’s “belief system”, not based on facts, but on “we’re the scientists, you should trust us.” The government hates the fact that today, unlike the past, we can verify. Regan’s famous “Trust by Verify” quote has new meaning, when repeatedly the government has proven that what they say cannot be verified to be true. But then you did get to keep your doctor and insurance didn’t you?
Tuesday, February 3, 2015
Rational Decision Making
By Tom Rhodes, 2/3/2015
Pew Research survey shows there is a huge gap between what scientists believe and what the average person believes. "On the whole, as compared to most members of the public, scientists are likely drawing from a larger scientific knowledge base — and thinking more scientifically — about each of these issues," George Mason Univ. communications professor Edward Mailbach wrote in an email. "Therefore, their views appear to be more in line with a completely dispassionate reading of the risks versus the benefits."
The biggest split between scientists and the general public is on GMO foods. Fully 88 percent of the scientists surveyed said it is safe to eat genetically modified foods, while only 37 percent of the public say it is safe and 57 percent say it is unsafe. Over two thirds, 68 percent of scientists indicated it is safe to eat foods grown with pesticides, compared with only 28 percent of the general public.
Dispassionately looking at the facts, the war on GMO is clearly emotional not rational. Libertarians in general are somewhat more scientific, that’s why differences in libertarians opinions on GMO’s are more towards labeling issues, not banning issues. I generally like to point out the average US lifespan before the general use of pesticides, antibiotics, and GMOs compared to after their general use. The data is clear, pesticides, GMO’s, and antibiotics in our food production has accompanied a huge increase in our lifespan.
Consider the type 2 diabetes, there is an obvious and measurable increase in type 2 diabetes. Lots and lots of people want to blame our diet, GMOs, etc. What people don’t recognize or look at is the fact that we have a lot more people living long enough to get it. The average person who is diagnosed with type 2 diabetes is over 50. Now 100 years ago the average lifespan in the USA was under 50. The increase in type 2 diabetes very closely matches the increase in our population’s age. More older people more old people diseases. Not to say that our food does not contribute to the problem, but would you rather large numbers of people didn’t live to 50, or having to deal with diseases that generally don’t happen until 50? The real reason we are seeing more type 2 diabetes, hypertension, cancer, Alzheimer’s, osteoporosis, arthritis, and cardiovascular diseases is we have a lot more people surviving long enough to get those diseases. Let’s face it, we are better off with more people dying of old age diseases in their 60’s to 80’s than when people died in their 20’s to 40’s of the flu or foodborne disease, or animal borne pathogens. Those disease increases are an indicator, they mean we’re living longer fuller lives. More than medicine, engineering has prolonged our lives, from cheap refrigerators, cheap electricity, cheap HVAC, indoor plumbing, clean water, and safely processed food, we live a lot longer.
A hundred years ago the Spanish Flu killed around 100,000,000 people. Fully 2% of the people who got it died. The last flu pandemic in 2009 less than 400,000 people died, equally about 0.03% of the people who catch the flu dying. Because of better diets that pesticides, antibiotics, and GMO’s and other technology provide we have a 100 fold increase in the entire world’s population surviving a common disease, the flu.
Want to drink raw unpasteurized milk, go ahead, but know that the science and facts are clear, you’re at greater risk of getting sick and dying drinking raw milk than of any of the complications that may exist from drinking pasteurized milk. But you can’t compare milk borne diseases of 100 years ago to today either, the same tech that makes indoor plumbing and refrigeration common, has made milk processing safer at every stage. The chances of getting a raw milk disease are also a lot less than in the past. Pasteurized may be safer overall, but if you know the farmer and trust his practices, for that dairy (not all dairies) the raw may be safer than pasteurized. More importantly if you’re an adult, the science is clear, the health benefits of milk are questionable at best be it pasteurized or not.
Rational based decisions by the general public are not that common. Scientists generally say the way to clean safe cheap energy is nuclear, not what the general population thinks. The science on anthropogenic global warming is also pretty clear, but then neither the ruling elite nor general population want rational scientific decisions for what to do about global warming. Neither do the scientists, who make a bazillion dollars of researching global warming and climate change so long as their results are what the people controlling the money want. In the case of global warming, the ruling elite, who control the money, want more government so they can have more control. Follow the money, still more accurate than just about any indicator. Money from the government is just as tainted as money from some industry. TANSTAAFL
Take the current measles scare. It is a scare not a problem. The fact is there have been zero measles deaths in the past decade according to the CDC. If you look in the VAERS database you notice another fact, in the past decade there have been about 108 deaths due to complications from measles vaccines. Another fact is there have been over 6000 deaths of children from bicycle accidents in that same decade. You really care about children ignore measles and outlaw bicycles. Statistically there is a greater chance of your child dying from the MMR vaccine than from catching measles. Like the flu in the USA people generally don’t die from measles.
We need to learn to think like scientists and make rational decisions. But then I may be biased, I’m a professional chemist.
Pew Research survey shows there is a huge gap between what scientists believe and what the average person believes. "On the whole, as compared to most members of the public, scientists are likely drawing from a larger scientific knowledge base — and thinking more scientifically — about each of these issues," George Mason Univ. communications professor Edward Mailbach wrote in an email. "Therefore, their views appear to be more in line with a completely dispassionate reading of the risks versus the benefits."
The biggest split between scientists and the general public is on GMO foods. Fully 88 percent of the scientists surveyed said it is safe to eat genetically modified foods, while only 37 percent of the public say it is safe and 57 percent say it is unsafe. Over two thirds, 68 percent of scientists indicated it is safe to eat foods grown with pesticides, compared with only 28 percent of the general public.
Dispassionately looking at the facts, the war on GMO is clearly emotional not rational. Libertarians in general are somewhat more scientific, that’s why differences in libertarians opinions on GMO’s are more towards labeling issues, not banning issues. I generally like to point out the average US lifespan before the general use of pesticides, antibiotics, and GMOs compared to after their general use. The data is clear, pesticides, GMO’s, and antibiotics in our food production has accompanied a huge increase in our lifespan.
Consider the type 2 diabetes, there is an obvious and measurable increase in type 2 diabetes. Lots and lots of people want to blame our diet, GMOs, etc. What people don’t recognize or look at is the fact that we have a lot more people living long enough to get it. The average person who is diagnosed with type 2 diabetes is over 50. Now 100 years ago the average lifespan in the USA was under 50. The increase in type 2 diabetes very closely matches the increase in our population’s age. More older people more old people diseases. Not to say that our food does not contribute to the problem, but would you rather large numbers of people didn’t live to 50, or having to deal with diseases that generally don’t happen until 50? The real reason we are seeing more type 2 diabetes, hypertension, cancer, Alzheimer’s, osteoporosis, arthritis, and cardiovascular diseases is we have a lot more people surviving long enough to get those diseases. Let’s face it, we are better off with more people dying of old age diseases in their 60’s to 80’s than when people died in their 20’s to 40’s of the flu or foodborne disease, or animal borne pathogens. Those disease increases are an indicator, they mean we’re living longer fuller lives. More than medicine, engineering has prolonged our lives, from cheap refrigerators, cheap electricity, cheap HVAC, indoor plumbing, clean water, and safely processed food, we live a lot longer.
A hundred years ago the Spanish Flu killed around 100,000,000 people. Fully 2% of the people who got it died. The last flu pandemic in 2009 less than 400,000 people died, equally about 0.03% of the people who catch the flu dying. Because of better diets that pesticides, antibiotics, and GMO’s and other technology provide we have a 100 fold increase in the entire world’s population surviving a common disease, the flu.
Want to drink raw unpasteurized milk, go ahead, but know that the science and facts are clear, you’re at greater risk of getting sick and dying drinking raw milk than of any of the complications that may exist from drinking pasteurized milk. But you can’t compare milk borne diseases of 100 years ago to today either, the same tech that makes indoor plumbing and refrigeration common, has made milk processing safer at every stage. The chances of getting a raw milk disease are also a lot less than in the past. Pasteurized may be safer overall, but if you know the farmer and trust his practices, for that dairy (not all dairies) the raw may be safer than pasteurized. More importantly if you’re an adult, the science is clear, the health benefits of milk are questionable at best be it pasteurized or not.
Rational based decisions by the general public are not that common. Scientists generally say the way to clean safe cheap energy is nuclear, not what the general population thinks. The science on anthropogenic global warming is also pretty clear, but then neither the ruling elite nor general population want rational scientific decisions for what to do about global warming. Neither do the scientists, who make a bazillion dollars of researching global warming and climate change so long as their results are what the people controlling the money want. In the case of global warming, the ruling elite, who control the money, want more government so they can have more control. Follow the money, still more accurate than just about any indicator. Money from the government is just as tainted as money from some industry. TANSTAAFL
Take the current measles scare. It is a scare not a problem. The fact is there have been zero measles deaths in the past decade according to the CDC. If you look in the VAERS database you notice another fact, in the past decade there have been about 108 deaths due to complications from measles vaccines. Another fact is there have been over 6000 deaths of children from bicycle accidents in that same decade. You really care about children ignore measles and outlaw bicycles. Statistically there is a greater chance of your child dying from the MMR vaccine than from catching measles. Like the flu in the USA people generally don’t die from measles.
We need to learn to think like scientists and make rational decisions. But then I may be biased, I’m a professional chemist.
Information Theory
By Tom Rhodes, 2/3/2015
Ever hear of Information Theory? It’s not terribly new theory, but has become more robust as we’ve progressed through the information age. You will notice descriptions of Information Theory are based in physics, mathematics, and biology: Wikipedia describes information theory as being “based on probability theory and statistics. The most important quantities of information are entropy, the information in a random variable, and mutual information, the amount of information in common between two random variables.” You can take MIT’s course on it for free: Information Theory Course at MIT
From Information Theory we get Bioinformatics, “an interdisciplinary field that develops methods and software tools for understanding biological data. As an interdisciplinary field of science, bioinformatics combines computer science, statistics, mathematics, and engineering to study and process biological data.” Again from Wikipedia (I know not the best source but good enough for this).
Bioinformatics is both an umbrella term for the body of biological studies that use computer programming as part of their methodology, as well as a reference to specific analysis "pipelines" that are repeatedly used, particularly in the fields of genetics and genomics. Common uses of bioinformatics include the identification of candidate genes and nucleotides (SNPs). Often, such identification is made with the aim of better understanding the genetic basis of disease, unique adaptations, desirable properties (esp. in agricultural species), or differences between populations. In a less formal way, bioinformatics also tries to understand the organisational principles within nucleic acid and protein sequences.
OK, so studying biology and information are basically the same kind of study; the study of the transmission of data. Like all info, genetic or computer, information suffers from degradation a.k.a. entropy. When looking at information transfer we work units of information. Be it computers information, or language, or even biology the basic unit is a word. The alphabet may be different, bits, bytes, nitrogenous base, etc. But information is created from small bits, that create larger bits, that create complete ideas, that make up wholes. Decoding these words can make something. A recipe for Ice Cream isn’t actually ice cream, and DNA for a fish isn’t the fish, but both are the information required to make those items.
Consider the “net”, in 2013, the World Wide Web is estimated to have reached at least 4 zettabytes (write a 4 and put zeros after it). Now mutations in information are possible, with that much information you would expect to see at least one web page that was created from information mutation that had new information on it that was created by random chance not some artificial intelligence creating that information. Not the formation of a web site by a program designed to transmit information, but the creation of new information through random mutation. Every webpage with the zettabytes of information on the web, we know was designed by some intelligence, good web page, 404 error web page, bad web page, wrong web page, ugly web page, inspiring web page, every web page was designed, period. Information has never been observed to be created without design, period. Clearly the creation of real information by a non-intelligent source has never been observed, even with astronomical chances for it to have happened. Oh every time somebody queries google it generates a new web page, but regardless of how many inputs or programmatic mutations, google never produces obamacare.org. Call that natural variation within a program. A random informational transmission error (mutation) may In fact return a 404 page not found error (fatal error that returns nothing), but it doesn’t return new information generated randomly.
Cellular life is the most complex information system ever observed. The information in a living cell makes the internet look like a couple of Lego blocks. As with the interweb there has never been observed the creation of new information without a designer.
Back to words, or specifically the term word. In language a word is a unit of information, consisting of one or more spoken sounds or their written representation, that functions as a principal carrier of meaning. In computing a word is a term for the natural unit of data used by a particular processor design, basically a group of digits (binary or decimal) that are handled as a unit by the instruction set or the hardware of the processor. In biology it can be referred to as a gene.
You can’t have information nor transmit it without a designer of that information. Information has never nor can it ever be created without a creator. In fact it cannot be used without a method, or language, to interpret it. Random sounds can’t transmit information, speech and language can. Random electrical pulses can’t transmit or create information, computer programs created with language can. DNA, the recipe for a life, cannot transmit itself, RNA as part of a vastly complex designed system, that looks remarkably like a programed molecular robotic system can. Like language, or computer programs, such a system is required to read and process the information before information can exist.
The new words we have now, like bioinformatics, did not originate in randomness, they were created. You can say the word, bioinformatics, evolved. That would not be improper or wrong. Just as you can observe and identify the fact that computers and computer programs have evolved. Language and computers evolved from the creation of new information. They did not evolve from random, arbitrary, uncontrolled sources. The evolved by design. Evolution of anything is caused by design changes. Some design changes are good like the creation of the new word “scientological “, some are just awful, like the creation of the new word “twerk.” There can be no doubt both of those new words transmit information and originated from some intellect. You may question the quality of that intellect, but not the fact that it is an intellect.
We’ve engineered new genes, created GMO’s, used animal husbandry to create miniature poodles and St. Bernards from the same original program (wolf). We’ve never been able to, nor observed a living organism becoming something completely different. What’s in common is an intellect to design the changes, but no wolf to cat modifications yet. We’re getting better at manipulating the program of life. But the more we learn, the more we learn that it is a program, with a language, and as such was designed.
I read about it a long time ago, before we had words like bioinformatics. Even before Information Theory, it was explained. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
Word
Ever hear of Information Theory? It’s not terribly new theory, but has become more robust as we’ve progressed through the information age. You will notice descriptions of Information Theory are based in physics, mathematics, and biology: Wikipedia describes information theory as being “based on probability theory and statistics. The most important quantities of information are entropy, the information in a random variable, and mutual information, the amount of information in common between two random variables.” You can take MIT’s course on it for free: Information Theory Course at MIT
From Information Theory we get Bioinformatics, “an interdisciplinary field that develops methods and software tools for understanding biological data. As an interdisciplinary field of science, bioinformatics combines computer science, statistics, mathematics, and engineering to study and process biological data.” Again from Wikipedia (I know not the best source but good enough for this).
Bioinformatics is both an umbrella term for the body of biological studies that use computer programming as part of their methodology, as well as a reference to specific analysis "pipelines" that are repeatedly used, particularly in the fields of genetics and genomics. Common uses of bioinformatics include the identification of candidate genes and nucleotides (SNPs). Often, such identification is made with the aim of better understanding the genetic basis of disease, unique adaptations, desirable properties (esp. in agricultural species), or differences between populations. In a less formal way, bioinformatics also tries to understand the organisational principles within nucleic acid and protein sequences.
OK, so studying biology and information are basically the same kind of study; the study of the transmission of data. Like all info, genetic or computer, information suffers from degradation a.k.a. entropy. When looking at information transfer we work units of information. Be it computers information, or language, or even biology the basic unit is a word. The alphabet may be different, bits, bytes, nitrogenous base, etc. But information is created from small bits, that create larger bits, that create complete ideas, that make up wholes. Decoding these words can make something. A recipe for Ice Cream isn’t actually ice cream, and DNA for a fish isn’t the fish, but both are the information required to make those items.
Consider the “net”, in 2013, the World Wide Web is estimated to have reached at least 4 zettabytes (write a 4 and put zeros after it). Now mutations in information are possible, with that much information you would expect to see at least one web page that was created from information mutation that had new information on it that was created by random chance not some artificial intelligence creating that information. Not the formation of a web site by a program designed to transmit information, but the creation of new information through random mutation. Every webpage with the zettabytes of information on the web, we know was designed by some intelligence, good web page, 404 error web page, bad web page, wrong web page, ugly web page, inspiring web page, every web page was designed, period. Information has never been observed to be created without design, period. Clearly the creation of real information by a non-intelligent source has never been observed, even with astronomical chances for it to have happened. Oh every time somebody queries google it generates a new web page, but regardless of how many inputs or programmatic mutations, google never produces obamacare.org. Call that natural variation within a program. A random informational transmission error (mutation) may In fact return a 404 page not found error (fatal error that returns nothing), but it doesn’t return new information generated randomly.
Cellular life is the most complex information system ever observed. The information in a living cell makes the internet look like a couple of Lego blocks. As with the interweb there has never been observed the creation of new information without a designer.
Back to words, or specifically the term word. In language a word is a unit of information, consisting of one or more spoken sounds or their written representation, that functions as a principal carrier of meaning. In computing a word is a term for the natural unit of data used by a particular processor design, basically a group of digits (binary or decimal) that are handled as a unit by the instruction set or the hardware of the processor. In biology it can be referred to as a gene.
You can’t have information nor transmit it without a designer of that information. Information has never nor can it ever be created without a creator. In fact it cannot be used without a method, or language, to interpret it. Random sounds can’t transmit information, speech and language can. Random electrical pulses can’t transmit or create information, computer programs created with language can. DNA, the recipe for a life, cannot transmit itself, RNA as part of a vastly complex designed system, that looks remarkably like a programed molecular robotic system can. Like language, or computer programs, such a system is required to read and process the information before information can exist.
The new words we have now, like bioinformatics, did not originate in randomness, they were created. You can say the word, bioinformatics, evolved. That would not be improper or wrong. Just as you can observe and identify the fact that computers and computer programs have evolved. Language and computers evolved from the creation of new information. They did not evolve from random, arbitrary, uncontrolled sources. The evolved by design. Evolution of anything is caused by design changes. Some design changes are good like the creation of the new word “scientological “, some are just awful, like the creation of the new word “twerk.” There can be no doubt both of those new words transmit information and originated from some intellect. You may question the quality of that intellect, but not the fact that it is an intellect.
We’ve engineered new genes, created GMO’s, used animal husbandry to create miniature poodles and St. Bernards from the same original program (wolf). We’ve never been able to, nor observed a living organism becoming something completely different. What’s in common is an intellect to design the changes, but no wolf to cat modifications yet. We’re getting better at manipulating the program of life. But the more we learn, the more we learn that it is a program, with a language, and as such was designed.
I read about it a long time ago, before we had words like bioinformatics. Even before Information Theory, it was explained. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
Word
Monday, June 23, 2014
Caught Again, Cooking the Science Books
By Tom Rhodes, 6/23/2014
What is plainly obvious is that global warming is nothing more than a pseudoscience concocted to justify global government. We continue to see lies, fraud, and fictitious data to support the idea that the globe is warming because of man’s undue influence on the climate. Soon we will see the foundation of AGW theory to fabricated and fraudulent.
This is the truth, before government statists got ahold of the data.
The US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record
What we have now is yet another example condemning stastists. Steven Goddard’s US blog Real Science provides this example shows how shamelessly the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has manipulated the graph of US surface temperature records, which has been one of the world’s most influential climate records.
This is yet more proof that skeptics of global warming (aka deniers) have been consistently correct.
What is plainly obvious is that global warming is nothing more than a pseudoscience concocted to justify global government. We continue to see lies, fraud, and fictitious data to support the idea that the globe is warming because of man’s undue influence on the climate. Soon we will see the foundation of AGW theory to fabricated and fraudulent.
This is the truth, before government statists got ahold of the data.
The US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record
What we have now is yet another example condemning stastists. Steven Goddard’s US blog Real Science provides this example shows how shamelessly the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has manipulated the graph of US surface temperature records, which has been one of the world’s most influential climate records.
This is yet more proof that skeptics of global warming (aka deniers) have been consistently correct.
Monday, June 16, 2014
Moore's law is going to explode
By Tom Rhodes, 6/16/2014
Looks like Moore’s law is going to get blown apart soon. The idea that due to miniaturization and faster transistors that computing speed will double every 18 months has held true for a while. New discovery that will allow to not only measure the polarity but also the spin of electrons in electronics will move us from a binary systems to quadratic systems using both spin and polarity. So instead of every position on a bus or in storage representing either + or – you’ll have each position resulting one of 4 representations, +S +D –S or –D. that will be the initial improvement. So instead of a 64bit processor being able to handle 4000 combinations per cycle, it will be able to handle 16MILLION combinations per cycle. Interesting note that in 64bit storage a 16Million color image, will require only 1 position per pixel to describe it’s color, reducing the size of a 16Million color image by a factor of 4000. That means an image that used to take 2 megabytes of data would require a small fraction of that for storage.
And . . . . when instead of just measuring spin in terms of left and right but in degrees of left or right (degree of polymerization) true 8, 16 and even 32 character storage positions instead of binary will be possible. Computing will EXPLODE faster than the 80’s. The Heusler compound is going to change computing. Based on using Co2MnSi this is the breakthrough that physicists and chemists around the world have long anticipated, and it will play a pivotal role in information technology.
Read About It Here
Looks like Moore’s law is going to get blown apart soon. The idea that due to miniaturization and faster transistors that computing speed will double every 18 months has held true for a while. New discovery that will allow to not only measure the polarity but also the spin of electrons in electronics will move us from a binary systems to quadratic systems using both spin and polarity. So instead of every position on a bus or in storage representing either + or – you’ll have each position resulting one of 4 representations, +S +D –S or –D. that will be the initial improvement. So instead of a 64bit processor being able to handle 4000 combinations per cycle, it will be able to handle 16MILLION combinations per cycle. Interesting note that in 64bit storage a 16Million color image, will require only 1 position per pixel to describe it’s color, reducing the size of a 16Million color image by a factor of 4000. That means an image that used to take 2 megabytes of data would require a small fraction of that for storage.
And . . . . when instead of just measuring spin in terms of left and right but in degrees of left or right (degree of polymerization) true 8, 16 and even 32 character storage positions instead of binary will be possible. Computing will EXPLODE faster than the 80’s. The Heusler compound is going to change computing. Based on using Co2MnSi this is the breakthrough that physicists and chemists around the world have long anticipated, and it will play a pivotal role in information technology.
Thursday, June 5, 2014
Popular Science Tells Scientists to “Stop Looking”
By Tom Rhodes, 6/5/2014
In the April 2014 issue of Popular Science, the is asking scientists to stop doing science that might reach Politically Correct conclusions. Specifically stop doing neuroscience looking at the differences between men and women because the results might support politically incorrect stereotypes. The call (and title of the article) is to “Stop Looking For 'Hardwired' Differences In Male And Female Brains.”
Understand exactly what “Popular Science” is calling for. Stop doing scientific research that might lead to evidence that sex based stereotypes are based on real physiologic differences in males and females. “Popular Science” believes that evidence that doesn’t support the feminist position that the differences between boys and girls is socially induced and not rooted in biological differences, and that scientists should not do any research that might upset their belief. Even the primary example they use to illustrate their point, actually proves the opposite.
How is a simple measurement that can clearly identify sex of more than a third of all samples not meaningful. Saying that you can't tell the sex of a random brain from its size ignores the fact that any adult human brain smaller than 1053 cc is female, and any larger than 1398 cc is male. Because about a third of human brains are larger than 1053 cc or smaller than 1398 cc that data IS meaningful, so too is the fact that there is a two thirds overlap in brain size between the sexes. The hard fact is that the average size of women’s brains is 1187 cc and the average size of a men’s brains is 1276 cc, that 7% difference is meaningful.
New research also indicates that there is a difference between how men’s and women’s brains are wired. The research indicates that men have stronger connections within a given hemisphere, whereas women have stronger connections between the two. Again there is overlap but a clear measurable difference in total population studied. Just as brain size and intelligence are clearly related. In 2005, psychologist Michael McDaniel evaluated studies that used brain-imaging and standard intelligence tests and found that unequivocally, bigger brains correlated with smarter people [source: McDaniel]. The overlap in male/female brain size is meaningful too; when scientists converted the SAT scores of 100,000 17- and 18-year-olds to a corresponding IQ score and found that males averaged 3.63 IQ points higher than the females. Since you all know that the average IQ is 100, that means that although men have on average a 7% larger brain it only results in about average 3% increase in IQ. Thus when looking at the totality of populations, the differences are real, measurable, and meaningful, but those real difference do not correlate to any specific individual.
This all points to the very un-PC fact that men and women are different. Casual observation and in-depth statistical analysis will show you that there are far more men in engineering than women, and there are far more women in nursing and teaching than men. Both are valued and worthy professions, and the bias we see in men/women self-select those professions is clearly observable and scientifically rational. The overlap in human brains between the sexes is why there are individuals of either sex who excel and are successful in avocations that stereotypically populated by the other sex; while the reason there are sex based stereotypical avocations is because as a whole men and women are different in observable measurable ways that results in them self-selecting different vocations. So historically and scientifically we readily observe that on the whole men are more suited for some vocations and women more suited for others.
It is not politically correct to note there are clear historic and scientific facts that indicate that men and women have real physiologic and neurologic differences that result in differing abilities and preferences. “Popular Science” now is pushing to stop research that might actually scientifically quantify those differences. This is why people are now doubting scientists as a reliable source of the truth. It can be clearly observed that if the science doesn’t reach the preconceived outcome that the ruling elite desire it is not published, hidden, covered up, and not funded (Watch the documentary “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed”). Truth is the victim of political correctness. “Popular Science” has clearly gone the way of 1984 and is a purveyor of newspeak not truth.
It’s not just Popular Science. Rather than debate, discuss, and look at the science of global warming, any talk, article, reference, etc. to ideas and research that doesn’t support the theory of Anthropogenic Climate Change is forbidden from the LA Times. Canadian weather forecasters are forbidden from discussing climate change. The is a clear scientific link between abortion and breast cancer you don’t read about that in the news. The real reasons pro-lifers are pro-life are never mentioned (they are characterized as women-haters, even though there are more women than men in the pro-life movement). The MSM is dominated by newspeak, 1984 was prophetical not allegorical.
The statists in our country are attacking the truth, we are seeing our liberty and freedoms eroded at medieval rates. Statists at our colleges and universities openly call for censorship of ideas they don’t want discussed or expressed. Statists in the press routinely refuse to report and actively deny and slander news that doesn’t support the statist agenda. Now even Popular Science calls for scientific research to stop because the truth might not support current PC positions. This coincides with the open attack on Christianity, the religion that lead to the scientific method, the religion that lead to the enlightenment and libertarian thinking. Truth leads to freedom, Christ said, “you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." Popular Science is so worried that the truth might not lead to PC conclusions, it tells scientists to “Stop Looking.”
Popular Science is basically saying “Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.”
In the April 2014 issue of Popular Science, the is asking scientists to stop doing science that might reach Politically Correct conclusions. Specifically stop doing neuroscience looking at the differences between men and women because the results might support politically incorrect stereotypes. The call (and title of the article) is to “Stop Looking For 'Hardwired' Differences In Male And Female Brains.”
Understand exactly what “Popular Science” is calling for. Stop doing scientific research that might lead to evidence that sex based stereotypes are based on real physiologic differences in males and females. “Popular Science” believes that evidence that doesn’t support the feminist position that the differences between boys and girls is socially induced and not rooted in biological differences, and that scientists should not do any research that might upset their belief. Even the primary example they use to illustrate their point, actually proves the opposite.
”In the past decade, several thousand papers have been published on sex differences in the human brain. Many physical differences are genuine, but oftentimes not meaningful. Take for example, an easily measurable characteristic: size. One study recorded men’s brain volumes at 1,053 to 1,499 cubic centimeters and women’s at 975 to 1,398. The overlap means you couldn’t tell the sex of a random brain from its size.”
How is a simple measurement that can clearly identify sex of more than a third of all samples not meaningful. Saying that you can't tell the sex of a random brain from its size ignores the fact that any adult human brain smaller than 1053 cc is female, and any larger than 1398 cc is male. Because about a third of human brains are larger than 1053 cc or smaller than 1398 cc that data IS meaningful, so too is the fact that there is a two thirds overlap in brain size between the sexes. The hard fact is that the average size of women’s brains is 1187 cc and the average size of a men’s brains is 1276 cc, that 7% difference is meaningful.
New research also indicates that there is a difference between how men’s and women’s brains are wired. The research indicates that men have stronger connections within a given hemisphere, whereas women have stronger connections between the two. Again there is overlap but a clear measurable difference in total population studied. Just as brain size and intelligence are clearly related. In 2005, psychologist Michael McDaniel evaluated studies that used brain-imaging and standard intelligence tests and found that unequivocally, bigger brains correlated with smarter people [source: McDaniel]. The overlap in male/female brain size is meaningful too; when scientists converted the SAT scores of 100,000 17- and 18-year-olds to a corresponding IQ score and found that males averaged 3.63 IQ points higher than the females. Since you all know that the average IQ is 100, that means that although men have on average a 7% larger brain it only results in about average 3% increase in IQ. Thus when looking at the totality of populations, the differences are real, measurable, and meaningful, but those real difference do not correlate to any specific individual.
This all points to the very un-PC fact that men and women are different. Casual observation and in-depth statistical analysis will show you that there are far more men in engineering than women, and there are far more women in nursing and teaching than men. Both are valued and worthy professions, and the bias we see in men/women self-select those professions is clearly observable and scientifically rational. The overlap in human brains between the sexes is why there are individuals of either sex who excel and are successful in avocations that stereotypically populated by the other sex; while the reason there are sex based stereotypical avocations is because as a whole men and women are different in observable measurable ways that results in them self-selecting different vocations. So historically and scientifically we readily observe that on the whole men are more suited for some vocations and women more suited for others.
It is not politically correct to note there are clear historic and scientific facts that indicate that men and women have real physiologic and neurologic differences that result in differing abilities and preferences. “Popular Science” now is pushing to stop research that might actually scientifically quantify those differences. This is why people are now doubting scientists as a reliable source of the truth. It can be clearly observed that if the science doesn’t reach the preconceived outcome that the ruling elite desire it is not published, hidden, covered up, and not funded (Watch the documentary “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed”). Truth is the victim of political correctness. “Popular Science” has clearly gone the way of 1984 and is a purveyor of newspeak not truth.
It’s not just Popular Science. Rather than debate, discuss, and look at the science of global warming, any talk, article, reference, etc. to ideas and research that doesn’t support the theory of Anthropogenic Climate Change is forbidden from the LA Times. Canadian weather forecasters are forbidden from discussing climate change. The is a clear scientific link between abortion and breast cancer you don’t read about that in the news. The real reasons pro-lifers are pro-life are never mentioned (they are characterized as women-haters, even though there are more women than men in the pro-life movement). The MSM is dominated by newspeak, 1984 was prophetical not allegorical.
The statists in our country are attacking the truth, we are seeing our liberty and freedoms eroded at medieval rates. Statists at our colleges and universities openly call for censorship of ideas they don’t want discussed or expressed. Statists in the press routinely refuse to report and actively deny and slander news that doesn’t support the statist agenda. Now even Popular Science calls for scientific research to stop because the truth might not support current PC positions. This coincides with the open attack on Christianity, the religion that lead to the scientific method, the religion that lead to the enlightenment and libertarian thinking. Truth leads to freedom, Christ said, “you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." Popular Science is so worried that the truth might not lead to PC conclusions, it tells scientists to “Stop Looking.”
Popular Science is basically saying “Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.”
Monday, May 5, 2014
Politically Correct Science
By Tom Rhodes, 5/5/2014
“ Politically Incorrect Science
Don’t pay any attention to that man behind the curtain.”
In 2008 Ben Stein produced and stared in the move “Expelled: No Intelligence allowed.” The film presents strong evidence that the mainstream science establishment suppresses academics who believe they see evidence of intelligent design in nature and who criticize evidence supporting Darwinian evolution. Now that science is producing politically incorrect results, we are now going to see the same science establishment suppress evidence of Darwinian evolution.
A Troublesome Inheritance, By Nicholas Wade, presents logic, genetic and other scientific arguments that destroy the orthodoxy of today’s science establishment. Science-loving equalitarians will have to choose between science and their faith. The heart of Wade’s book, stated quietly but with command of the technical literature, is a bombshell. It is now known with a high level of scientific confidence that both tenets of the orthodoxy are wrong. What Orthodoxy you ask?
The orthodoxy that all homo sapiens are so genetically identical and there are no viable classifications between people than can be attributed to race. In "The Apportionment of Human Diversity" (1972), geneticist Richard Lewontin, declares that the races are so close to genetically identical that "racial classification is now seen to be of virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance." In a similar 1984 essay, paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould, says that human evolution in everything but cosmetic differences stopped before humans left Africa, saying "human equality is a contingent fact of history."
Apply the scientific method to Lewontin’s premise, and it too is obviously flawed. If in fact there is no genetic or taxonomic significance to race, then genetic variations among humans would not naturally sort people into races and ethnicities. What A Troublesome Inheritance reports is exactly that, computer analysis of random sampling of bits of DNA that are known to vary among humans, and group similarities, corresponds to the self-identified race or ethnicity of the subjects. Not just the five major races: Asians, Caucasians, sub-Saharan Africans, Native Americans and aboriginal inhabitants of Australia. If the group all have European ancestry, the groupings will correspond to Italians, Germans, French and the various other European ethnicities. Lewontin premise is a object failure. Genetically humans can easily be classified genetically, by the racial and ethnic groups that humans have identified.
Apply the scientific method to Gould's assurance that significant evolution had stopped before humans left Africa and that premise fails spectacularly. The idea defies the theory of evolution. No scientifically thinking person would conclude that after man left Africa, the environment including lethally cold temperatures, produced no evolutionary adaptations. A 2009 appraisal of the available genome-wide scans estimated that 14% of the genome has been under the pressure of natural selection during the past 30,000 years, long after humans left Africa. The genes under selection include a wide variety of biological traits affecting everything from bone structure and diet to aspects of the brain and nervous system involving cognition and sensory perception. Studies further indicate Caucasians, Asians and sub-Saharan Africans have found that of the hundreds of genetic regions under selection, about 75% to 80% are under selection in only one race. The genes in these regions affect more than just cosmetic variations in appearance, some include changes in brain function. Wade writes, "What these genes do within the brain is largely unknown, But the findings establish the obvious truth that brain genes do not lie in some special category exempt from natural selection. They are as much under evolutionary pressure as any other category of gene."
Oops! – since we actually mapped out the Human Genome, in 2003, what is actually known by geneticists continues to deviate from this orthodoxy. The MSM and social scientists steadfastly refuse to acknowledge the politically incorrect results of new research. The non-PC conclusion is that the reigning intellectual orthodoxy on race is the "social construct." Scientifically the orthodoxy on race should die, however socially the orthodoxy will be perpetuated, regardless of science and truth.
Prove it to yourself, two people are entering two sporting events. All you know is their names, but you have to bet $1000 of your own money on each event. The events are weight lifting and a Marathon run. The athletes names are Sven and Abebe. Who do you put your money on for which event? Are you going to ignore genetics implied by their names? Or do you believe race is only a “social construct,” and the the observable fact that the world’s strongest men consistently come from the same geographic part of the world, and have the same genetic heritage is meaningless. Do you ignore the fact that the overwhelming majority of world class marathon runners don’t come from that same area and have distinctively different genetics? Do you honestly believe that the observable truth concerning strength and endurance don’t apply to other physiologic abilities like cognitive reasoning? Are you so brainwashed that the observable truth should be ignored, and the science discouraged if it doesn’t produce the results you believe “should” be true?
Those who cling to liberal race orthodoxy are the geocentrists of today. The dogma that says "deep inside we're all the same," "it's not genetics, it’s the culture," and "human equality is a contingent fact of history," are fiction. Those ideas obscure the scientific truth. Science and the truth will eventually make it impossible to scream “racist” when somebody merely notes that when you exclude black murders from us crime statistics, the USA’s murder rate is virtually identical to Northern Europe’s, and comparing the murder rate of blacks in America more closely resembles the murder rate of sub-Saharan Africa, and there may be a genetic rationale for this observation.
Science is not politically correct, nor is the truth. So what’s it going to be, are you going to believe in science Darwinian Evolution, in which case you must accept based on the scientific evidence that the races are not the same, or are you going to suppress science, and faithfully stick with social construct that liberal orthodoxy on race perpetuates?
“ Politically Incorrect Science
Don’t pay any attention to that man behind the curtain.”
In 2008 Ben Stein produced and stared in the move “Expelled: No Intelligence allowed.” The film presents strong evidence that the mainstream science establishment suppresses academics who believe they see evidence of intelligent design in nature and who criticize evidence supporting Darwinian evolution. Now that science is producing politically incorrect results, we are now going to see the same science establishment suppress evidence of Darwinian evolution.
A Troublesome Inheritance, By Nicholas Wade, presents logic, genetic and other scientific arguments that destroy the orthodoxy of today’s science establishment. Science-loving equalitarians will have to choose between science and their faith. The heart of Wade’s book, stated quietly but with command of the technical literature, is a bombshell. It is now known with a high level of scientific confidence that both tenets of the orthodoxy are wrong. What Orthodoxy you ask?
The orthodoxy that all homo sapiens are so genetically identical and there are no viable classifications between people than can be attributed to race. In "The Apportionment of Human Diversity" (1972), geneticist Richard Lewontin, declares that the races are so close to genetically identical that "racial classification is now seen to be of virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance." In a similar 1984 essay, paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould, says that human evolution in everything but cosmetic differences stopped before humans left Africa, saying "human equality is a contingent fact of history."
Apply the scientific method to Lewontin’s premise, and it too is obviously flawed. If in fact there is no genetic or taxonomic significance to race, then genetic variations among humans would not naturally sort people into races and ethnicities. What A Troublesome Inheritance reports is exactly that, computer analysis of random sampling of bits of DNA that are known to vary among humans, and group similarities, corresponds to the self-identified race or ethnicity of the subjects. Not just the five major races: Asians, Caucasians, sub-Saharan Africans, Native Americans and aboriginal inhabitants of Australia. If the group all have European ancestry, the groupings will correspond to Italians, Germans, French and the various other European ethnicities. Lewontin premise is a object failure. Genetically humans can easily be classified genetically, by the racial and ethnic groups that humans have identified.
Apply the scientific method to Gould's assurance that significant evolution had stopped before humans left Africa and that premise fails spectacularly. The idea defies the theory of evolution. No scientifically thinking person would conclude that after man left Africa, the environment including lethally cold temperatures, produced no evolutionary adaptations. A 2009 appraisal of the available genome-wide scans estimated that 14% of the genome has been under the pressure of natural selection during the past 30,000 years, long after humans left Africa. The genes under selection include a wide variety of biological traits affecting everything from bone structure and diet to aspects of the brain and nervous system involving cognition and sensory perception. Studies further indicate Caucasians, Asians and sub-Saharan Africans have found that of the hundreds of genetic regions under selection, about 75% to 80% are under selection in only one race. The genes in these regions affect more than just cosmetic variations in appearance, some include changes in brain function. Wade writes, "What these genes do within the brain is largely unknown, But the findings establish the obvious truth that brain genes do not lie in some special category exempt from natural selection. They are as much under evolutionary pressure as any other category of gene."
Oops! – since we actually mapped out the Human Genome, in 2003, what is actually known by geneticists continues to deviate from this orthodoxy. The MSM and social scientists steadfastly refuse to acknowledge the politically incorrect results of new research. The non-PC conclusion is that the reigning intellectual orthodoxy on race is the "social construct." Scientifically the orthodoxy on race should die, however socially the orthodoxy will be perpetuated, regardless of science and truth.
Prove it to yourself, two people are entering two sporting events. All you know is their names, but you have to bet $1000 of your own money on each event. The events are weight lifting and a Marathon run. The athletes names are Sven and Abebe. Who do you put your money on for which event? Are you going to ignore genetics implied by their names? Or do you believe race is only a “social construct,” and the the observable fact that the world’s strongest men consistently come from the same geographic part of the world, and have the same genetic heritage is meaningless. Do you ignore the fact that the overwhelming majority of world class marathon runners don’t come from that same area and have distinctively different genetics? Do you honestly believe that the observable truth concerning strength and endurance don’t apply to other physiologic abilities like cognitive reasoning? Are you so brainwashed that the observable truth should be ignored, and the science discouraged if it doesn’t produce the results you believe “should” be true?
Those who cling to liberal race orthodoxy are the geocentrists of today. The dogma that says "deep inside we're all the same," "it's not genetics, it’s the culture," and "human equality is a contingent fact of history," are fiction. Those ideas obscure the scientific truth. Science and the truth will eventually make it impossible to scream “racist” when somebody merely notes that when you exclude black murders from us crime statistics, the USA’s murder rate is virtually identical to Northern Europe’s, and comparing the murder rate of blacks in America more closely resembles the murder rate of sub-Saharan Africa, and there may be a genetic rationale for this observation.
Science is not politically correct, nor is the truth. So what’s it going to be, are you going to believe in science Darwinian Evolution, in which case you must accept based on the scientific evidence that the races are not the same, or are you going to suppress science, and faithfully stick with social construct that liberal orthodoxy on race perpetuates?
Thursday, October 3, 2013
Where has all the Good SciFi Gone? A tale of Censorship
By Tom Rhodes, 10/4/2013
One of my all time favorite books, Ender's Game, by Orson Scott Card is coming out as a movie over 25 years after it was first published. If first written today, in the politically correct publishing world it may have never been published. Maybe this article should be titled where have all the good books gone because the discussion here doesn't affect just SciFi, but since I'm a serious SciFi buff and the vast majority of what I read for enjoyment is SciFi and fantasy, that's what the discussion is about.
What I consider "new" SciFi authors, include Anne McCaffrey. Orson Scott Card, Stephen Brust, and Eric Flint, and some of their stuff has been in print nearly half a century. However something has happened. Most new SciFi/Fantasy is crap and carries very little gravitas and even less science. Using Barsoom and gravitas in the same sentence may be a stretch, but ERB's Mars series did accurately describe hundreds of inventions that are just now becoming reality, so the science and vision of the John Carter series cannot be questioned. It's just hard to imagine a serious SciFi/Fantasy buff who grew up reading the vision of ERB or deep thought and social commentary of Tolkein, Clarke, Asimov, and Heinlein adding Amish Vampires in Space to his library.
Let's face it when the 2013 Hugo Award for best novel is given to "Redshirts" a derivative of Star Trek with not an iota of new or original material, and more talk about BJ's than technology, you have to know that SciFi publishing has turned to crap. Lucky at Amazon the first couple chapters are free, I tried but I couldn't even get past the prolog, and this from a guy who can enjoy just about any Star Trek book, and likes the prose of Edgar Rice Burroughs.
There may be good new SciFi out there but from the looks of things, if women don't find them politically correct they may be censored. SciFi author Constance Cooper's bragged about the
success of her 8yr old daughter in getting a book store to remove titles she thought were sexist.
A SciFi author championing the success of censorship, in getting books that contain ideas her "8-year-old considered 'sexist'" explains a lot. The kind of thinking that could prompt Cooper to think that comments about censorship distracted people from the point is the kind of thinking that makes "newsspeak" a reality, and certainly can't be called "critical thinking". WTF was the point if it wasn't to get a business to censor books and justifying censorship?
SciFi authors actually championing censorship is one of the reasons we can't have good SciFi books anymore. Imagine SciFi legend Ray Bradbury, author of Fahrenheit 451, even suggesting any book be removed from the shelves of a book store because of the ideas it contained, much less bragging about being successful.
I'm not saying there isn't new good SciFi/Fantasy or good new authors out there, but they don't seem to be getting published. This isn't new but it's gotten far worse, Bruce Bethke wrote "Cyberpunk" around 30 years ago, not really new. But because of the interweb and new technology, you can read it. You can only get Cyberpunk as a free ebook because Bethke wouldn't compromise the story to meet the publisher's whims. In today's world I don't think Heinlein could get published.
In today's politically correct culture you have to go look for new good SciFi, you won't find it at your local book store, but you can find it. Kudo's to Bruce Bethke who's trying to do something about the problem. Not only an author, he's the editor of one of the few sources for new authors and solid SciFi/Fantasy. In the tradition of Amazing Stories, and other anthology magazines of the past, Bethke edits, Stupefying Stories. Check it out, I'm sure he's not censoring stories that 8 year old girls think are sexist.
For the record I switched to ebooks about 10 years ago before Nook and Kindle were even thought of; reading them on my PC or palm, regular books just take up too much space, and ebooks are too convenient, but I do have an adequate selection of real bound paper type SciFi and other books. That said I'm ordering Amish Vampires in Space , how can I say I have any sort of SciFi/Fantasy collection when such a title exists and I don't have it ;) I own a copy of "Trials and Tribble-ations" and Shatner's "Tekwar" so I can't really brag about the "quality" of my SciFi library. For the absurd title and cover alone I'm adding to my collection, it will sit between my copy of Thuvia, Maid of Mars with the Michael Whelan art and "M.Y.T.H. Inc. Link".
One of my all time favorite books, Ender's Game, by Orson Scott Card is coming out as a movie over 25 years after it was first published. If first written today, in the politically correct publishing world it may have never been published. Maybe this article should be titled where have all the good books gone because the discussion here doesn't affect just SciFi, but since I'm a serious SciFi buff and the vast majority of what I read for enjoyment is SciFi and fantasy, that's what the discussion is about.
What I consider "new" SciFi authors, include Anne McCaffrey. Orson Scott Card, Stephen Brust, and Eric Flint, and some of their stuff has been in print nearly half a century. However something has happened. Most new SciFi/Fantasy is crap and carries very little gravitas and even less science. Using Barsoom and gravitas in the same sentence may be a stretch, but ERB's Mars series did accurately describe hundreds of inventions that are just now becoming reality, so the science and vision of the John Carter series cannot be questioned. It's just hard to imagine a serious SciFi/Fantasy buff who grew up reading the vision of ERB or deep thought and social commentary of Tolkein, Clarke, Asimov, and Heinlein adding Amish Vampires in Space to his library.
Let's face it when the 2013 Hugo Award for best novel is given to "Redshirts" a derivative of Star Trek with not an iota of new or original material, and more talk about BJ's than technology, you have to know that SciFi publishing has turned to crap. Lucky at Amazon the first couple chapters are free, I tried but I couldn't even get past the prolog, and this from a guy who can enjoy just about any Star Trek book, and likes the prose of Edgar Rice Burroughs.
There may be good new SciFi out there but from the looks of things, if women don't find them politically correct they may be censored. SciFi author Constance Cooper's bragged about the
success of her 8yr old daughter in getting a book store to remove titles she thought were sexist.
Cooper said she posted the experience on her writing website, www.constancecooper.com, and submitted the link to boingboing, one of her favorite blogs, "because I knew from reading it that the editors are concerned about issues of gender and culture and also how to raise kids to think critically."
"Unfortunately it triggered a somewhat nasty flurry of comments about censorship, which I feel really distracted from the point of the post," Cooper said.
A SciFi author championing the success of censorship, in getting books that contain ideas her "8-year-old considered 'sexist'" explains a lot. The kind of thinking that could prompt Cooper to think that comments about censorship distracted people from the point is the kind of thinking that makes "newsspeak" a reality, and certainly can't be called "critical thinking". WTF was the point if it wasn't to get a business to censor books and justifying censorship?
SciFi authors actually championing censorship is one of the reasons we can't have good SciFi books anymore. Imagine SciFi legend Ray Bradbury, author of Fahrenheit 451, even suggesting any book be removed from the shelves of a book store because of the ideas it contained, much less bragging about being successful.
I'm not saying there isn't new good SciFi/Fantasy or good new authors out there, but they don't seem to be getting published. This isn't new but it's gotten far worse, Bruce Bethke wrote "Cyberpunk" around 30 years ago, not really new. But because of the interweb and new technology, you can read it. You can only get Cyberpunk as a free ebook because Bethke wouldn't compromise the story to meet the publisher's whims. In today's world I don't think Heinlein could get published.
In today's politically correct culture you have to go look for new good SciFi, you won't find it at your local book store, but you can find it. Kudo's to Bruce Bethke who's trying to do something about the problem. Not only an author, he's the editor of one of the few sources for new authors and solid SciFi/Fantasy. In the tradition of Amazing Stories, and other anthology magazines of the past, Bethke edits, Stupefying Stories. Check it out, I'm sure he's not censoring stories that 8 year old girls think are sexist.
For the record I switched to ebooks about 10 years ago before Nook and Kindle were even thought of; reading them on my PC or palm, regular books just take up too much space, and ebooks are too convenient, but I do have an adequate selection of real bound paper type SciFi and other books. That said I'm ordering Amish Vampires in Space , how can I say I have any sort of SciFi/Fantasy collection when such a title exists and I don't have it ;) I own a copy of "Trials and Tribble-ations" and Shatner's "Tekwar" so I can't really brag about the "quality" of my SciFi library. For the absurd title and cover alone I'm adding to my collection, it will sit between my copy of Thuvia, Maid of Mars with the Michael Whelan art and "M.Y.T.H. Inc. Link".
Tuesday, September 10, 2013
Who Do You Trust
By Tom Rhodes, 8/10/2013
Do you trust Monsanto sponsored research that says GMO's are good?
Do you trust Dow Chemical sponsored research that says Chemical XYZ is safe?
Do you trust the video gaming industry research that says video games don't affect behavior?
Then why do you trust Red Light Camera Research sponsored by the people who that collect red light ticket fees saying red light camera's and the tickets they issue make you safer?
Regardless of the subject, any state sponsored "scientific" research should automatically be considered suspect if the results include:
the need for more tax money, to do more research
the need for more state power to control something,
limiting the choices individuals are allowed to make in favor of state control of those choices.
Our government was created with severe restrictions because our forefathers didn't even trust themselves if given power. Before you trust the government with your well being, ask yourself how well that worked out for Native Americans.
Global Warming is a hoax, you don't need to be a scientist to understand that. "Because you don't have to know a damn thing about the climate to know when corrupt human beings are putting forth falsehoods in order to justify claiming more money and power on their own behalf." ~ Voxday
Do you trust Monsanto sponsored research that says GMO's are good?
Do you trust Dow Chemical sponsored research that says Chemical XYZ is safe?
Do you trust the video gaming industry research that says video games don't affect behavior?
Then why do you trust Red Light Camera Research sponsored by the people who that collect red light ticket fees saying red light camera's and the tickets they issue make you safer?
Regardless of the subject, any state sponsored "scientific" research should automatically be considered suspect if the results include:
Our government was created with severe restrictions because our forefathers didn't even trust themselves if given power. Before you trust the government with your well being, ask yourself how well that worked out for Native Americans.
Global Warming is a hoax, you don't need to be a scientist to understand that. "Because you don't have to know a damn thing about the climate to know when corrupt human beings are putting forth falsehoods in order to justify claiming more money and power on their own behalf." ~ Voxday
Sunday, July 14, 2013
Volt Owners are Tax Dodging Scum
By Tom Rhodes, 7/14/2013
Chevy Volt a bad idea in 1913 a bad idea in 2013. For well over 100 years auto makers have been trying to sell electric cars as a better solution to the internal combustion engine. Here’s an ad from 2013.
For 100 years the technology has failed. The promises of better batteries soon to be developed that will be cheap to eliminate the range and other problems of the electric car in a century of development have never materialized. Battery tech has come a long way in the past 100 years but the Internal Combustion engine hasn’t been at a standstill either. The economic advantage of the EV vs IC is fiction. It’s a simple matter of chemistry; the energy density electric storage is not competitive with the energy density of gasoline. Of course the energy density of ethanol, hydrogen, propane, NG, etc, also make them less competitive, but for this article we’ll just look at costs over time and use of electricity vs gasoline.
Compare the Chevy Volt to the Chevy Cruz, they are the same platform vehicle made by the same company. We’ll use 3 year walk away leasing prices to determine the cost per mile of owning the EV power vs same car configured with IC power.
You can Leases for the Cruze for about $149/mo for 36 months with $1200 at signing, the Cruze gets 28 mpg city and 42 MPG hwy. Total cost to lease for 36 months is $6600. Testing shows the Cruze in the real world gets around 30mpg. So to drive it 12,000 miles a year for 3 years if Gas costs an average of $3.62 cents the total fuel costs over the life of the lease will be about $4400. Total cost of lease and fuel to drive the Cruze for 3 years is $11,000.
Leases for the Volt are now about $269 a month for 36 months, with $2,399 due at signing, the Volt get 38 miles per charge (we’ll assume you always drive less exactly 38 miles between charges and never use gasoline). Total cost to lease for 36 months is $12,100. The cost per charge for electricity is about $1.25, simple math shows electric cost for the 36,000 miles over the lease is about $1200. Total cost of lease and fuel to drive the Volt for 3 years is $13,300.
Comparison is simple cost to own and drive the same basic car IC vs EV and the conclusion is the same today as 100 years ago. Electric is a loser, over a 3 year lease a Volt costs over $2000 more to own than a Cruze and that’s only if you never put gas into the volt and limit yourself to 38 mile trips.
In the real world, people will drive the Volt on its gas engine, so spend more. Real world tests of the Volt using both Electricity and Gasoline it does admirably and gets around 60 mpg. So in the real world it’s fuel costs would be right hat half the Cruze’s fuel costs, totally about $2200. That means In the real world the Volt costs $4500 more over a 3 year lease to drive. The reality is that rationale people who need a car for transportation not to make a political statement, when given the choice between two pretty much identical vehicles will choose the one that cost’s less. GM sales and leases of the Cruze vs. Volt pretty much tell the story, in the real world the Volt goes up in flames.
Not only does buying a volt demonstrate you’re an economic idiot, if you own a Volt you’re a tax dodger just as guilty as GE or any other corporation that “evades” paying taxes. Not just the thousands of wasted tax dollars as an incentive to get you to make a stupid economic decision, but for every electric mile the Volt driver get’s the benefit of not paying taxes for the road use of her vehicle the same as Cruze driver pays, because of gasoline taxes. Using the same logic that slams Apple and GE for avoiding taxes, leasing a Volt makes you an immoral tax evader. An average of around 50 cents per gallon in taxes is paid over that same 3 year 36,000 mile lease lease driving a Cruze instead of a Volt. Volt drivers evades from $300 to $600 in taxes that the driver of the Cruze pays but still get’s to use the road that the Cruze driver’s taxes pay to maintain.
If the EV had to compete on a level playing field against IC we wouldn’t even have this discussion. The Detroit Electric Car tried to compete without government help, it lost, and it’s been out of business for 80 years. The physics of energy density cannot be beat by the desires of greenie-wienies who care about how they think things “should” be now how things are. To make them feel better about their stupid economic decision to buy a Volt, they are allowed to join the ranks of Microsoft, Apple, GM, GE, and millionaires everywhere and screw the people out of tax dollars; so not only are Volt owners economic idiots, they’re also tax dodging scum.
Chevy Volt a bad idea in 1913 a bad idea in 2013. For well over 100 years auto makers have been trying to sell electric cars as a better solution to the internal combustion engine. Here’s an ad from 2013.
For 100 years the technology has failed. The promises of better batteries soon to be developed that will be cheap to eliminate the range and other problems of the electric car in a century of development have never materialized. Battery tech has come a long way in the past 100 years but the Internal Combustion engine hasn’t been at a standstill either. The economic advantage of the EV vs IC is fiction. It’s a simple matter of chemistry; the energy density electric storage is not competitive with the energy density of gasoline. Of course the energy density of ethanol, hydrogen, propane, NG, etc, also make them less competitive, but for this article we’ll just look at costs over time and use of electricity vs gasoline.
Compare the Chevy Volt to the Chevy Cruz, they are the same platform vehicle made by the same company. We’ll use 3 year walk away leasing prices to determine the cost per mile of owning the EV power vs same car configured with IC power.
You can Leases for the Cruze for about $149/mo for 36 months with $1200 at signing, the Cruze gets 28 mpg city and 42 MPG hwy. Total cost to lease for 36 months is $6600. Testing shows the Cruze in the real world gets around 30mpg. So to drive it 12,000 miles a year for 3 years if Gas costs an average of $3.62 cents the total fuel costs over the life of the lease will be about $4400. Total cost of lease and fuel to drive the Cruze for 3 years is $11,000.
Leases for the Volt are now about $269 a month for 36 months, with $2,399 due at signing, the Volt get 38 miles per charge (we’ll assume you always drive less exactly 38 miles between charges and never use gasoline). Total cost to lease for 36 months is $12,100. The cost per charge for electricity is about $1.25, simple math shows electric cost for the 36,000 miles over the lease is about $1200. Total cost of lease and fuel to drive the Volt for 3 years is $13,300.
Comparison is simple cost to own and drive the same basic car IC vs EV and the conclusion is the same today as 100 years ago. Electric is a loser, over a 3 year lease a Volt costs over $2000 more to own than a Cruze and that’s only if you never put gas into the volt and limit yourself to 38 mile trips.
In the real world, people will drive the Volt on its gas engine, so spend more. Real world tests of the Volt using both Electricity and Gasoline it does admirably and gets around 60 mpg. So in the real world it’s fuel costs would be right hat half the Cruze’s fuel costs, totally about $2200. That means In the real world the Volt costs $4500 more over a 3 year lease to drive. The reality is that rationale people who need a car for transportation not to make a political statement, when given the choice between two pretty much identical vehicles will choose the one that cost’s less. GM sales and leases of the Cruze vs. Volt pretty much tell the story, in the real world the Volt goes up in flames.
Not only does buying a volt demonstrate you’re an economic idiot, if you own a Volt you’re a tax dodger just as guilty as GE or any other corporation that “evades” paying taxes. Not just the thousands of wasted tax dollars as an incentive to get you to make a stupid economic decision, but for every electric mile the Volt driver get’s the benefit of not paying taxes for the road use of her vehicle the same as Cruze driver pays, because of gasoline taxes. Using the same logic that slams Apple and GE for avoiding taxes, leasing a Volt makes you an immoral tax evader. An average of around 50 cents per gallon in taxes is paid over that same 3 year 36,000 mile lease lease driving a Cruze instead of a Volt. Volt drivers evades from $300 to $600 in taxes that the driver of the Cruze pays but still get’s to use the road that the Cruze driver’s taxes pay to maintain.
If the EV had to compete on a level playing field against IC we wouldn’t even have this discussion. The Detroit Electric Car tried to compete without government help, it lost, and it’s been out of business for 80 years. The physics of energy density cannot be beat by the desires of greenie-wienies who care about how they think things “should” be now how things are. To make them feel better about their stupid economic decision to buy a Volt, they are allowed to join the ranks of Microsoft, Apple, GM, GE, and millionaires everywhere and screw the people out of tax dollars; so not only are Volt owners economic idiots, they’re also tax dodging scum.
Tuesday, July 9, 2013
Results of Obama’s Edict to Research Gun Violence are In
By Tom Rhodes, 7/8/2013
Earlier this year in response to the tragedy at Sandy Hook, Obama issued an edict (Executive Order) commanding the CDC to do a comprehensive survey of studies regarding guns and gun violence in the United States. The clear goal was to produced the hard evidence that the US was a violent nation of wild-west shootouts, so that he could garner support of the American People, based on fact, fund future research while embracing strict gun control legislation. This preliminary survey is out, you haven’t read about it in the Lame Stream Press because the results aren’t what liberal statists wanted. In fact the results pretty much back up what Pro-Gun Americans have been saying.
The study, which was compiled by the Institute of Medicine and National Research Council under the CDC's direction, was recently completed and released. Read it yourself HERE. The CDC’s research and numbers pretty much justify of pro-gun rights arguments made over the past couple years.
First and most importantly the overwhelming majority of gun deaths are not a result of crime. The CDC numbers report < 39% of firearm deaths are crime related, and those include deaths of the bad guy by cops or private citizens. Most firearm deaths, 61%, are suicides, a tragedy, but there is no epidemic of gun crime. In fact the survey notes that overall gun related deaths have decreased dramatically.
The results note that “there is empirical evidence that gun turn in programs are ineffective,” saying that the guns turned in during gun by backs are not typical of guns used in crimes. So much for the effectiveness of using tax payers money to “get guns off the streets.”
Here is some big news that the Press and Government aren’t shouting about; guns “are effective in preventing injury to the gunwielding crime victim. Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was “used” by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.” This conclusion pretty much destroys hoplophobe arguments that there are better ways than a gun for self protection. Based on gun sales over the past few years, it is safe to say that the public is well aware of this fact.
The survey goes on to note “Defensive uses of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed. Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”
The data is clear, self defense using firearms by ordinary citizens is both effective and common. Excluding the benefits of self defense in future studies on gun violence would clearly diminish the credibility and acceptance of any such studies results.
Why Obama, Biden, Congress, and the Press aren’t shouting about the results of Obama’s Edict to the CDC to do a comprehensive survey of studies regarding guns and gun violence in the United States, it’s because the results support pro-gun arguments. Our founding Fathers were right when they restricted the government, not the people, in regards to keeping and bearing arms.
Earlier this year in response to the tragedy at Sandy Hook, Obama issued an edict (Executive Order) commanding the CDC to do a comprehensive survey of studies regarding guns and gun violence in the United States. The clear goal was to produced the hard evidence that the US was a violent nation of wild-west shootouts, so that he could garner support of the American People, based on fact, fund future research while embracing strict gun control legislation. This preliminary survey is out, you haven’t read about it in the Lame Stream Press because the results aren’t what liberal statists wanted. In fact the results pretty much back up what Pro-Gun Americans have been saying.
The study, which was compiled by the Institute of Medicine and National Research Council under the CDC's direction, was recently completed and released. Read it yourself HERE. The CDC’s research and numbers pretty much justify of pro-gun rights arguments made over the past couple years.
First and most importantly the overwhelming majority of gun deaths are not a result of crime. The CDC numbers report < 39% of firearm deaths are crime related, and those include deaths of the bad guy by cops or private citizens. Most firearm deaths, 61%, are suicides, a tragedy, but there is no epidemic of gun crime. In fact the survey notes that overall gun related deaths have decreased dramatically.
The results note that “there is empirical evidence that gun turn in programs are ineffective,” saying that the guns turned in during gun by backs are not typical of guns used in crimes. So much for the effectiveness of using tax payers money to “get guns off the streets.”
Here is some big news that the Press and Government aren’t shouting about; guns “are effective in preventing injury to the gunwielding crime victim. Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was “used” by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.” This conclusion pretty much destroys hoplophobe arguments that there are better ways than a gun for self protection. Based on gun sales over the past few years, it is safe to say that the public is well aware of this fact.
The survey goes on to note “Defensive uses of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed. Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”
The data is clear, self defense using firearms by ordinary citizens is both effective and common. Excluding the benefits of self defense in future studies on gun violence would clearly diminish the credibility and acceptance of any such studies results.
Why Obama, Biden, Congress, and the Press aren’t shouting about the results of Obama’s Edict to the CDC to do a comprehensive survey of studies regarding guns and gun violence in the United States, it’s because the results support pro-gun arguments. Our founding Fathers were right when they restricted the government, not the people, in regards to keeping and bearing arms.
Friday, July 5, 2013
The Left vs Reality
By Tom Rhodes, 7/5/2013
Fundamentally the political left cannot accept reality and observable truth. The real world doesn’t fit their preconceived ideas of how the world “should be.” They see the real world as broken and needing to be changed, ignoring the fact that their preconceived ideas on how the world “should be” may be what are broken.
Equality between sexes, races, geography, has never been observed and does not exist anywhere in the world today or in the history of the world. There is zero evidence of equality actually existing. The fact is, if you believe in evolution, then equality is not something you can justify. Evolution produces unequal outcomes, not better or worse outcomes but unequal outcomes.
Fact, people of east African descent disproportionately win marathons. Fact in USA, where blacks make up around 13% of the population, they comprise about 80% of the professional NBA players. Fact in the USA white people of Northern European Ancestry make up a disproportionate percentage of professional NHL players. Over the past 15 years a totally out of proportion percentage of American spelling bee winners have their ancestry in India. For generations the best design and manufacture of optical lenses come from Germany and Japan. Equality just doesn’t exist – PERIOD!
In the real world people can and do capitalize on their inequality. The left however desperately wants equality, even in absence of its existence. They see some people getting rich as proof of evil, not evidence of scientific fact that some people have different skills than others. The see some groups being more violent than others as evidence that they are being suppressed, rather than they have a different unequal culture that is more accepting of violence as a means of solving differences.
The ideas of “equality” have been put to the test. The moral call for equality is a background for the political agenda of the left. This call for equality they claim will lift the poor out of poverty, end wars, and make the world a better place. This is the same claim that ruling oligarchies has made for centuries all around the world. It has also failed for centuries. Those nations which mandated equality, strictly controlled by ruling elite who knew best how to make things equal, are dead. From the French Revolution, to the Boxer Rebellion to the rise of the USSR and Communist China and the other ”equality” based societies created in history all resulted in the same outcome; mass starvation and mass murder.
Because the observable truth and history, clearly shows that equality does not exist, the left only use emotions to promote their failed ideas on how the world should be. If the preconceived idea of the left was right, then history would show that central planning by educated elites with the power of government to force their would have been more vastly more successful than economies based on individual liberty and free trade with millions of individuals pursued their own individual interests.
The radical idea that has proven to provide the most people with the highest standard of living is embracing inequality. Liberty results in unequal outcomes, but those outcomes are generally better for everybody. The only equality that should and can exist in culture is the idea that all people should be treated equally under the law; this is to prevent oppression, allowing all people to use the advantages they have by being unequal from their fellow man. This is an idea that is based on reality and observable truth.
The reality of people not being equal in IQ, disposition, drive, strength, speed, coordination, social skills, size, beauty, and all other capabilities, results in unequal outcomes in life. This isn't fair; to bad, life isn't fair. Because life's outcomes don’t fit with the emotional desires of how the left thinks things "should" be, they emotionally attack it leaving reason on logic behind. Human equality is a myth. I challenge you to prove me wrong by showing some scientific rationale to prove equality actually exists.
Tocqueville’s warned that equality is not a defense against tyranny, but an open invitation to ambitious and cunning leaders who enlist our support in depriving ourselves of freedom, saying:
Fundamentally the political left cannot accept reality and observable truth. The real world doesn’t fit their preconceived ideas of how the world “should be.” They see the real world as broken and needing to be changed, ignoring the fact that their preconceived ideas on how the world “should be” may be what are broken.
Equality between sexes, races, geography, has never been observed and does not exist anywhere in the world today or in the history of the world. There is zero evidence of equality actually existing. The fact is, if you believe in evolution, then equality is not something you can justify. Evolution produces unequal outcomes, not better or worse outcomes but unequal outcomes.
Fact, people of east African descent disproportionately win marathons. Fact in USA, where blacks make up around 13% of the population, they comprise about 80% of the professional NBA players. Fact in the USA white people of Northern European Ancestry make up a disproportionate percentage of professional NHL players. Over the past 15 years a totally out of proportion percentage of American spelling bee winners have their ancestry in India. For generations the best design and manufacture of optical lenses come from Germany and Japan. Equality just doesn’t exist – PERIOD!
In the real world people can and do capitalize on their inequality. The left however desperately wants equality, even in absence of its existence. They see some people getting rich as proof of evil, not evidence of scientific fact that some people have different skills than others. The see some groups being more violent than others as evidence that they are being suppressed, rather than they have a different unequal culture that is more accepting of violence as a means of solving differences.
“The agenda of the left -- promoting envy and a sense of grievance, while making loud demands for "rights" to what other people have produced -- is a pattern that has been widespread in countries around the world.” ~ Thomas Sowell
The ideas of “equality” have been put to the test. The moral call for equality is a background for the political agenda of the left. This call for equality they claim will lift the poor out of poverty, end wars, and make the world a better place. This is the same claim that ruling oligarchies has made for centuries all around the world. It has also failed for centuries. Those nations which mandated equality, strictly controlled by ruling elite who knew best how to make things equal, are dead. From the French Revolution, to the Boxer Rebellion to the rise of the USSR and Communist China and the other ”equality” based societies created in history all resulted in the same outcome; mass starvation and mass murder.
Because the observable truth and history, clearly shows that equality does not exist, the left only use emotions to promote their failed ideas on how the world should be. If the preconceived idea of the left was right, then history would show that central planning by educated elites with the power of government to force their would have been more vastly more successful than economies based on individual liberty and free trade with millions of individuals pursued their own individual interests.
The radical idea that has proven to provide the most people with the highest standard of living is embracing inequality. Liberty results in unequal outcomes, but those outcomes are generally better for everybody. The only equality that should and can exist in culture is the idea that all people should be treated equally under the law; this is to prevent oppression, allowing all people to use the advantages they have by being unequal from their fellow man. This is an idea that is based on reality and observable truth.
The reality of people not being equal in IQ, disposition, drive, strength, speed, coordination, social skills, size, beauty, and all other capabilities, results in unequal outcomes in life. This isn't fair; to bad, life isn't fair. Because life's outcomes don’t fit with the emotional desires of how the left thinks things "should" be, they emotionally attack it leaving reason on logic behind. Human equality is a myth. I challenge you to prove me wrong by showing some scientific rationale to prove equality actually exists.
Tocqueville’s warned that equality is not a defense against tyranny, but an open invitation to ambitious and cunning leaders who enlist our support in depriving ourselves of freedom, saying:
"The…sole condition required in order to succeed in centralizing the supreme power in a democratic community is to love equality, or to get men to believe you love it. Thus the science of despotism, which was once so complex, is simplified, and reduced, as it were, to a single principle."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
