MS XP FUD

. . Everyone was warned that Microsoft was no longer going to support its popular XP Operating system.  In its wake we should expect an avalanche of malware.  The dire prognostications were reflective of the Year 2000 scare.  At this time we were told to expect planes to fall from the sky.  But nothing of significance happened.  It's now been over two months and no serious infections have appeared for XP.  Is anyone surprised?
. . After thirteen years of almost monthly security patching, it was certainly reasonable to expect the "holes" in XP were plugged.  The big fear, however, was the not so public declining sales of desktop systems and of the constant barge of updates sold by software manufacturers. The demise of XP provided an opportunity to scare users into buying new stuff.
. . Microsoft's constant change and software bloat was unnecessary.  Their goal was not to improve their offerings with requested features, but to sell new product.  In the process they created a productivity challenge for support organizations.  With each new release, every three years or less, users had to retrain on stuff they once knew how to use even though the new software provided no new usable features for them. It was serious lost time.
. . Windows 8 was the final straw. Likewise, what has the "ribbon" graphical user interface added to the Office, but more confusion and unproductive retaining? Corporate users have solidly rejected Microsoft's self-serving tactic.
. . What the computer industry did not explain to users in their XP fear-mongering is the greatest source of malware was stuff users were being tricked into loading onto their computers through very effective social engineered scams, which arrive via email bait or promise of something FREE on the internet.  Unfortunately, none of Microsoft's heralded software protects against the guy or gal typing on the keyboard.

Big Bang Blunder and the Carbon Pollution Canard | The Resilient Earth

Hoards of non-scientists have been making a career out of pushing “settled science,” particularly when it come to climate change, the eco-socialists' favorite excuse for dismantling the world's existing economic and industrial base. Unlike the notoriously squishy science of climate change, physics is viewed as being mature and on a more solid foundation, at least by those who are physicists. Given the recent furor caused by the IPCC and NCA reports, plus the US EPA's ham handed attempt to institute CO₂ Cap & Trade without the agreement of Congress, it is instructional for scientific outsiders to review recent events in both fields. Read on, believers in the myth of settled science and those who think scientific questions are resolved by consensus.

Big Bang Blunder and the Carbon Pollution Canard | The Resilient Earth

Misguided Climate Policies

The Obama policy on climate change is based on computer models.  So how well have those models done relative to reality?

Not so well! For more read,
Why Kerry Is Flat Wrong on Climate Change: It was the scientific skeptics who bucked the 'consensus' and said the Earth was round by McNider and Christy,  http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303945704579391611041331266

Want More Information on GMO from Peer-Reviewed Articles

. . The goal of GENERA is to provide an all-in-one place where scientific literature about agricultural biotechnology can be found and understood at-a-glance and be readily accessible to the public. Regarding the risks associate with this technology there is extensive scientific literature.
. . Scientists and students at academic institutions have access to peer-reviewed journals around the world. However, most people do not have free access to these journals, and the research papers are often difficult to understand.
. . Many websites may discuss these issues in way that is easy to understand, but lack accuracy, independence, and sufficient scope.
. . GENetic Engineering Risk Atlas (GENERA) provides a searchable database of peer-reviewed research on the risks of genetically engineered crops. Below are answers to FAQs about GENERA:

• Why create GENERA?
• Who is GENERA for?
• What studies are in GENERA?
• How will GENERA be built?
• Who financially supports GENERA?
• How can I cite GENERA?
• For more information

Genetically Modified Scare Stories

. .  It seems some people thrive on scare or often are quick to accept pseudo-science to the exclusion of real science.  One of the latest scares is that of genetically modified food.  What they fail to realize is humans have been genetically modifying food for centuries.  For example, the corn we eat today bares no resemblance its initial natural form as teosinte.   It has been highly domesticate over millennia at the hands of humans in a far less targeted and controlled manner that is being done today. Furthermore, it is claimed that nearly 90% of all corn is genetically modified. (Click here)
. . Virtually all our food has been domesticated and a good reference as to studies can be found at Assessment of the food safety issues related to genetically modified foods.
. . Jon Entine, senior research fellow at the Center for Health & Risk Communication at George Mason University^[1] and the founder and director of the Genetic Literacy Project states

"We've eaten about 7 trillion meals in the 18 years since GMOs first came on the market. There's not one documented instance of someone getting so much as a sniffle."

A popular GMO product is the red grapefruit (click here for more info)

The 1929 Ruby Red patent came after the discovery of a red grapefruit growing on a pink variety. Using radiation to trigger mutations, new varieties were developed to retain the red tones which typically faded to pink, The Rio Red is a mutation bred variety which was developed by treatment of bud sticks with thermal neutrons. 

We are not suggesting that caution and proper testing is not required.  We are suggesting the current level of hysteria about GMO is not justified.

How Credible Is NASA on Climate Change?

The following web page on the NASA website http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensusstates

Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,1and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

On this same page, near the bottom, the following statement is found

The following page lists the nearly 200 worldwide scientific organizations that hold the position that climate change has been caused by human action. http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php

I can list the studies that have repeatedly debunked the 97% figure (aka a lie).  However, it's more telling just to examine this last claim.  Did NASA somehow miss the last several periods of worldwide glaciation (climate change in its most severe form) that occurred before humans occupied the planet? 

For more about the intentional misrepresentation on the climate consensus "google" The Myth of the Climate Change '97%' in order to see the whole Wall Street Journal, May 26, 2014 article
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136

Weather Extremes

The Media has been in overdrive on weather extremes, but what are the facts.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/scec/records

Scientists Respond to the Obama Administration’s 2014 National Climate Assessment
May 19,2014 by Anthony Watts  

The National Climate Assessment - 2014 (NCA) is a masterpiece of marketing that shows for the first time the full capabilities of the Obama Administration to spin a scientific topic as they see fit, without regard to the underlying facts. With hundreds of pages written by hundreds of captive scientists and marketing specialists, the administration presents their case for extreme climate alarm. This is a rebuttal drafted by 14 independent meteorology and climatology experts.

Current Claims Regard Climate Change Are Inadequate

“In case of dissension, never dare to judge till you've heard the other side.”

― Euripides, The Children of Herakles 

. . The issue with the Global Warming alarmism is not with the fact that the climate is changing.  Few deny the evidence.  The problem is the explanation.
. . Below is a graph showing the temperature anomaly measured in the last century as recorded by NASA http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

. . The temperate change from 1900 to 1940 is approximately equal to that from 1970 to 2010.  The alarmists claim that later is due primarily to human intervention while the former is not.  Likewise, they have no explanation for the 30 year pause from 1940 to 1970 and have no explanation for the apparent pause commencing in 1998.
. . The change in CO2 concentration has been monotonically consistent in this period.  Current claims are in adequate.  Better models are obviously necessary.

Poor Science Make Quacks Difficult to Debunk.

. . This month's eNewsletter from eSkeptic discussed EMDR or "Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing."  http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/14-05-21/ .  The main gist of the article was about how easy it is for some treatments to become mainstream even before they are adequately verified through independent and credible researchers.  This is especially true for Alternative Medicine where victims are desperately in search of remedies and are willing to try almost anything.
. . The best safety in such cases is to look for support from fundamental scientific principles.  Extreme caution is advised when claims seem to defy good sense, are revolutionary, or tend to be of an occult or magical nature.  Today, good science is rarely revolutionary.
. .  This article is a good example of how some practitioners stay ahead of competent review by constantly changing the baseline for analysis, make exorbitant wide claims that demand extensive time to confirm, or demand unusual levels of "training." 

Global Climate Change - The Human Element

I repeatedly hear that global climate change is caused by humans.  That statement is an unequivocal lie.  Humans do play a role in climate change, but they are not responsible for it.  The historical proxy record shows that climate has always changed long before humans were on the planet.  It is fair to say -- climate will always change.  Nothing within our current and foreseeable technological abilities can stop climate change.  Our ancestors adapted to the change, just as we must do.

Another Round of Climate Scare

. . They alarmist are at it again warning about catastrophic climate change.  Every time I hear them I head to NASA and check out the temperature anomalies trends. Here is the link.  http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/ . 
. . There is no argument that the climate has and continues to change.  It has always changed.  There is also no argument that the planet is warming.  We are exiting an unusually cold climate period.  There is also no argument that humans contribute to climate change.  That statement is inane. Humans change the planet.  The issue is the magnitude of the change and whether the alarmists can predict the future.  Thus far the answer is demonstrably NO.
. . The graphs are the NASA website deserve more in depth examination.  Here it is for the last 17 years in tabular form

  YEAR     ANNUAL    ROLLING
 1997   0.46    0.45 
 1998   0.62    0.44 
 1999   0.40    0.48 
 2000   0.40    0.51 
 2001   0.53    0.51 
 2002   0.61    0.53 
 2003   0.60    0.58 
 2004   0.51    0.60 
 2005   0.66    0.60 
 2006   0.59    0.58 
 2007   0.63    0.59 
 2008   0.49    0.59 
 2009   0.59    0.58 
 2010   0.66    0.57 
 2011   0.54    0.59 
 2012   0.57     * 
 2013   0.60     * 

. . Over the last 17 years the temperature anomaly has been flat. The alarmists neither have an explanation nor did they predicted it through models they have been using to forecast disaster.  They refer to it as a "pause."  They could be right, but the issue is -- it came as a complete surprise to them.  
. . With the scientific method if the model fails to predict, the hypothesis is erroneous. The one thing that is certain is -- The debate is NOT over and more research is needed.  Remedial actions need to be measured. 

I'll Pray for You.

. . Ever time I see where someone has purchased a Catholic Mass card or some religious prayer card, it reminds me of the purchase indulgences that offended Martin Luther. Although the purchaser's intentions may be admirable, the gesture seems disingenuous and a waste of resource.  In the case of illness wouldn't be better to do something to help the invalid or to eradicate the reason for his or her illness?  How do you gracefully redirect the positive wishes without offending?
. . For example in a recent Humanist article the question was posed. 

My Father is Sick, and Everyone Wants to Pray for Him. How Should I Respond?

Click here for the suggestion.

Obama Administration Misinforms

. . John Paul Holdren, the senior advisor to President Barack Obama on science and technology issues through his roles as Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, attempted to blame the colder winter extremes on Global Warming.  Although on the surface that seems illogical, it demonstrates the extremes one side of the Global Warming debate will go to misinform.
. . In his White House video in January, he had this to say:

“A growing body of evidence suggests that the kind of extreme cold being experienced by much of the United States as we speak is a pattern that we can expect to see with increasing frequency as global warming continues….
We also know that this week’s cold spell is of a type there’s reason to believe may become more frequent in a world that’s getting warmer, on average, because of greenhouse-gas pollution.”

Judge for yourself about any trends in winter temperatures

 

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/ 

Superstition Prevails

 

http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/evolution-creationism-intelligent-design.aspx 

Should Public Dollars Fund the Teaching of Ignorance and Superstition?

. . Taxpayers in 14 states will bankroll nearly $1 billion this year in tuition for private schools, including hundreds of religious schools that teach Earth is less than 10,000 years old, Adam and Eve strolled the garden with dinosaurs, and much of modern biology, geology and cosmology is a web of lies.

. . Politico.com reports

Decades of litigation have established that public schools cannot teach creationism or intelligent design. But private schools receiving public subsidies can — and do. A POLITICO review . . . found that many of these faith-based schools go beyond teaching the biblical story . . . as literal fact. Their course materials nurture disdain of the secular world, distrust of momentous discoveries and hostility toward mainstream scientists. They often distort basic facts about the scientific method.

Climate Change Not a Significant Worry for Americans

 

http://www.gallup.com/poll/167843/climate-change-not-top-worry.aspx 

Nobody Reads Most Published Scholarly Articles

About 1.8 million scholarly articles and scientific papers are published each year in 28,000 journals.  As many as half of these articles are not read by anyone beyond the author and the journal's editor, and 90 percent are not cited in other papers.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/half-academic-studies-are-never-read-more-three-people-180950222/

Artic Sea Ice

Claims are being made and often repeated by one group in the Climate Debate that the loss of Arctic Sea has not been accelerating.  The facts show that it is

Lead Author of IPCC Climate Report Refuses to Sign It.

Prof Richard Tol, from Sussex University, a highly respected climate economist and one of two ‘co-ordinating lead authors’ of an important chapter in the 2,600-page report published last week by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). refused to sign last week’s high-profile UN climate report because it was too ‘alarmist’.  Examples of its exaggeration are as follows:

How IPCC report was ramped up to predict wars, extreme weather and famine... while its authors slept on the job By Ben Pile Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2597907/Green-smear-campaign-against-professor-dared-disown-sexed-UN-climate-dossier.html#ixzz2y9W1q0fM

More IPCC Noise

. . Again the authors of IPCC reports engage in shrill rhetoric.  Their tactic seems to be -- when the facts do not substantiate the claim, then scream louder.  When Global Warming was rebuffed by the facts, then they changed the headline to Climate Change.  Who can argue against that?  Actually no one, since Climate Change is not new. It has always happened and most likely will continue to always happen.  Who can forget when the earth was a hot house as dinosaurs roamed the earth or when it was followed by ice sheets -- the latest being about 20,000 years ago when extended to the Ohio and Missouri rivers in North America.  Now that is some real climate change.
. . The attempt to claim that the humankind is responsible for climate change and can mitigate it is egotistical and absurd.  Yes, humans contribute, but to an insignificant amount and history has more than demonstrated.
. . The big squawk at this time of the year when tornadoes are prevalent is the severity of the weather extremes.  The Global Warning extremists claim that this violent weather will be more frequent and more severe.  But is that what is happening. NOAA says no