Immortal, Schmimortal...Wait, Or Is It "Imschmortal"?

This, from Gawker:

"Gabby Williams is eight years old, but looks like a newborn. She is one of only a handful of people across the world who age at an incredibly slow rate, and scientists are trying to figure out why. Once they do, the discovery could help fight Alzheimer's, and even give us an aging 'off switch,' which would give humans the chance to stay the same age... pretty much forever."

Apparently, you scientists have never seen a '70s Sci-fi movie. Stopping the aging process is just one of those things you shouldn't do because it's never going to end well. You know, like making apes super smart, or making machines super smart, or making Kardashians super smart.

Airbrushed (Climate) Models?

So I stumbled across yet another "sky-is-falling" Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) headline:

Has warming put 'Dirty Dozen' pollutants back in the saddle?

Apparently, the Arctic ice is melting and releasing nasty chemicals into the atmosphere, right?.  But then I stumbled across this little gem, buried in the middle:

The scientists indeed found a long-term downward trend in primary emissions after the Stockholm Convention banned production and trade in the "Dirty Dozen."

But a more complex and disturbing picture emerged when the same data was crunched through a simulation of the effect of global warming on POP concentrations.(emphasis mine)

So...I guess you could say that the picture is not only "complex and disturbing," but also "imaginary." Let's not even discuss the fact that apparently this model starts with the assumption that global warming exists, something still in dispute. (Before you go all Gore-ish on me, keep reading...) It's a computer model. It makes predictions. And if it's anything like most global warming models, it does it poorly. (Again, keep reading.) So, what this article is really saying is "we see a decrease in bad chemicals, but our made-up projections from our handy-dandy doomsday computer are saying we're all...well, doomed." And I'm not even going to get into the fact that many people out there, including scientists, think that banning DDT in the first place cost millions of lives due to malaria that could have been prevented. What I will say is that it's very hard to take this article seriously when one of the other "related headlines" on the page was this one:

New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism

The article states that NASA satellite data (which many consider to be more accurate than ground data and definitely more accurate than made-up-doomsday-computer data) indicates that:

the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.

Yeah, that's right--Your computer models SUCK. If that sounds familiar, you've probably been reading my blog for a while, since I posted on this way back in 2008.

So what does this mean? Well, we can say that...wait! Shhh! I think if you listen carefully, you might hear the stake being driven through the heart of the AGW Alarmist Movement....

In short, the central premise of alarmist global warming theory is that carbon dioxide emissions should be directly and indirectly trapping a certain amount of heat in the earth's atmosphere and preventing it from escaping into space. Real-world measurements, however, show far less heat is being trapped in the earth's atmosphere than the alarmist computer models predict, and far more heat is escaping into space than the alarmist computer models predict.

Can we finally take back Al Gore's Nobel Peace Prize and Oscar (although maybe he should get one for acting, since he's fooled so many people)?

Yeah, That's RIght...Screw You AND Bullwinkle!

Monkeys hate flying squirrels, report monkey-annoyance experts

Best. Headline. Ever.

And possibly my newest pick-up line:

Small Hairy Balls Hide Foul-Tasting Healthful Enzymes

Maybe There Are No Accidents...

President Obama, in explaining his decision to reverse (or as the NY Times says "lift the limits of") President Bush's policy on embryonic stem cell research, said: "Medical miracles do not happen simply by accident." Unless, of course, you're talking about Quinine, Smallpox vaccine/vaccinations, X-rays, Insulin, the Pap smear, LSD (once used to treat schizophrenia), discovery of allergies, Viagra, bromide treatment for epilepsy, Botox, Librium, Valium, anti-depressants, anesthesia (Ether/Nitrous Oxide), a virus in the Polio vaccine that led to the p53 gene (which may lead to a breakthrough in cancer discovery and treatment), Medical Marijuana, Interferon, and perhaps the most important medical "miracle" of all: Penicillin.

Think what you want about the issue, but I'm getting tired of the tripe that this man throws out there, and which passes for insightful dialogue.

There's A "Hold The Onions" Joke In There Somewhere...

Study: Women's armpits smell of onions

What's In A Name? Maybe Three To Five With Good Behavior.

According to ScienceBlog (by way of FARK) young people with unpopular names are more likely to commit crimes.

"Fauntleroy Monkeypus! You put that flamethrower down! You hear me young man?"

Yeah, I could see that.

Just In Case You Thought X-Files Made That Shit Up...

I give you this:


I don't even know what to say about this...

Doomed, I Tell You! DOOOMED!

I was reading an article that discussed the fact that there's a spectacular moon out tonight when I found this at the end of it:

Another astronomical treat that could be seen tonight and for the next two nights is the annual Geminid meteor shower, one of the year’s best displays of shooting stars. Up to 100 meteors an hour can fly across the sky. The meteors, which are easy to spot with the naked eye, appear to shoot out from the constellation Gemini, hence their name, but they can be seen all over the sky. However, with a full moon so bright, the best place to look is away from the Moon.

Meteor showers happen when the Earth passes through clouds of debris shed from comets. As the tiny fragments smash into the Earth’s upper atmosphere at about 100,000mph, they burn up in streaks of light.

For reasons that are not understood, the Geminid meteor showers are tending to grow stronger each year.

Wait...What? "Growing stronger every year"? "For reasons that are not understood"? I got your reason--Maybe it's because we're hurtling towards them at galactic speeds!!

Can You Say "Old News"?

You can if you've been a semi-regular reader here. This is by Wesley Pruden, and appears in today's op-ed in The Washington Times:

So far the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reports 63 record snowfalls in the United States, 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month. Only 44 Octobers over the past 114 years have been cooler than this last one. The polar ice is accumulating faster than usual, and some of the experts now concede that the globe hasn't warmed since 1995.

he continues:

Only last month Dr. Hansen's institute announced that October was the hottest on record, and then said "uh, never mind." The London Daily Telegraph calls this "a surreal blunder [that] raised a huge question mark about the temperature records that underpin the worldwide alarm over global warming."

In this account, the institute had to make the humiliating climb-down after two leading skeptics of the global-warming scam, Anthony Watts, an American meteorologist, and Steve McIntyre, a Canadian computer analyst, discovered that temperature readings from September had been carried over and repeated for October.

I've pointed out some of the problems with the whole global warming/climate change frenzy here, here, and here, and there are many others out there (much more qualified than I) saying much the same thing.

What are the odds Al Gore will give his Nobel Prize back?

R.I.P.

This came out of nowhere:

Prolific novelist and "ER" creator Michael Crichton has passed away. He was 66.

I always liked him. I had just finished my latest book on tape (CD, really), and was ready to start his newest.

The Coolest Thing I've Seen In A While

You know how when you were young, you believed in cool things, like Santa, and the Easter Bunny, and Playboy models? And then some adult told you none of them were real, and pretty much ruined your life? This totally makes up for it.

Possibly The Dumbest Thing Ever Said

And it doesn't shock me much that it relates to Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). This is from Maurice Strong, adviser to Kofi Annan:

"We may get to the point where the only way to save the world will be for industrial civilisation to collapse."

Because things were soooo much better before industrial civilization.

Just do me a favor, and go back and read that one more time. Go on; I'll wait. The logic is astounding, isn't it? It's like saying "it may be that the only way to prevent further wars is to all commit suicide tomorrow." Oh, sure it will work, but at what cost. Someone needs to introduce Mr. Strong to the term "Pyhrric victory."

Let's face it: the "world," or "the planet," or "the environment," or whatever term you want to use has been here a long time in one form or another, and it's going to be here a long time after our species is gone. Our whole of recorded history, cosmically speaking, is a blink of the eye, a fart in the wind. Less, even. I'm getting really sick and tired of people trying to cloak their political views, or some misguided hatred of industry/capitalism/etc. in a robe of altruism.

Anyway, I've said it before, and I'll say it again: If I were a betting man, I'd wager that an apocalypse by asteroid is much more likely (and sooner) than an apocalypse by AGW.

I Did A Little Climate Modeling In College...For The Money, Though. I Swear!

I'm sure I'll have the wonderful experience of being called a "climate change skeptic," or even better, a "climate change denier." The second term has the one-two punch of making it seem like I don't believe in climate change (I do. It changes from day to day, season to season. It's always changing.) and it uses a pejoratively loaded term like "denier" which makes it sound like I'm ignoring some basic truth while at the same time drawing comparisons to terms like "Holocaust denier." Just take a little look in my dictionary:

Skeptic: noun; 1) a person inclined to question or doubt accepted opinions. From skepsis 'inquiry, doubt'.

Deny: verb; 1) refuse to admit the truth or existence of.

See the difference? In one, you are questioning opinions; in the other, you are refusing to admit the truth. Big difference.

In any case, my feeling is that open questioning and debate are key components of scientific inquiry. Those who shout "the debate is over!" too often seem too desperate for the rest of us to believe them.

Now, on to the main course.

This is one of the best articles I've read discussing computer modeling--and its shortcomings--as it relates to climate change studies.

"The IPCC issues predictions for 20- to 30-year periods into the future, and updates them every 6-7 years, so in practice its current predictive capabilities can never be evaluated against real world data. As Tebaldi and Knutti observe, 'climate projections, decades or longer in the future by definition, cannot be validated directly through observed changes.'"

But more importantly, groups like the IPCC have created a "no-lose" situation. If the predictions from 20 years ago are correct, then the response is "see? We told you so!" If the predictions are incorrect, the response is "well, those predictions were based on the old models. We know much more now. Watch and see; we'll be right for the next 20 years." And so on.

Think I'm wrong? Read this:

The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth's climate seems to be _______ ____. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the ________ trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. "A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale," warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, "because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century."

Sounds pretty familiar doesn't it? You'd know enough to fill in the blanks with the terms "warming up" and "warming," right? Except you'd be wrong. Fill in those blanks with "cooling down" and "cooling," and you have an article from the April 28, 1975 issue of Newsweek. Want to see a little more?

There are ominous signs that the earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production - with serious political implications for just about every nation on earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only ten years from now.

And this little gem:

Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or divering[sic] arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve.

Yeah, that's right. Just 33 years ago, scientists were suggesting melting the arctic ice cap! The same one that we're now being warned will melt and kill us all! Okay, I'm exaggerating, but I think you can see my point. No? Well, what about this little nugget from an NPR report on the Argo system, which measures ocean temperature up to a depth of 3,000 feet:

Since the system was fully deployed in 2003, it has recorded no warming of the global oceans.

"There has been a very slight cooling, but not anything really significant," Willis says. So the buildup of heat on Earth may be on a brief hiatus. "Global warming doesn't mean every year will be warmer than the last. And it may be that we are in a period of less rapid warming."

I won't bother making fun of Willis for equating the terms "less rapid warming" and "slight cooling," but I will point out that the report also states "In fact, 80 percent to 90 percent of global warming involves heating up ocean waters." So, of course the article is critical of the global warming theory, right?

That could mean global warming has taken a breather. Or it could mean scientists aren't quite understanding what their robots are telling them.

Wow. Global warming exists, damn it. This new info means either it just stopped (but only temporarily), or these scientists are just too dumb to understand the data. But global warming exists. So with a "less rapid warming" of our oceans (combined with satellite temperature measurements--which some people seem to think are more reliable than ones on the ground--that also seem to be showing a "less rapid warming"), where is all this heat going to?

Kevin Trenberth at the National Center for Atmospheric Research says it's probably going back out into space. The Earth has a number of natural thermostats, including clouds, which can either trap heat and turn up the temperature, or reflect sunlight and help cool the planet.

That can't be directly measured at the moment, however.

"Unfortunately, we don't have adequate tracking of clouds to determine exactly what role they've been playing during this period," Trenberth says. It's also possible that some of the heat has gone even deeper into the ocean, he says. Or it's possible that scientists need to correct for some other feature of the planet they don't know about.

Or maybe it was carried away on the wings of fairies. Are you kidding me?! We're talking about making climate policy decisions that could themselves have serious repercussions and we don't know "where the heat is going"?! We can't even track the freakin' clouds?!

I think the debate is far from over. And for some people, that's a really inconvenient truth.

Yeah, I Know It's Freakin' Sand! So What?

You need to check out this picture taken by the Phoenix. It's not that pretty; in fact, it just looks like a big desert.

BUT IT'S FREAKIN' MARS!!!

How cool is that?

Onward Rode the 32,000!

I'm sure you won't see many mainstream media sources covering this:

Using a subset of the mailing list of American Men and Women of Science, a who’s who of Science, Robinson mailed out his solicitations through the postal service, requesting signed petitions of those who agreed that Kyoto was a danger to humanity. The response rate was extraordinary, “much, much higher than anyone expected, much higher than you’d ordinarily expect,” he explained. He’s processed more than 31,000 at this point, more than 9,000 of them with PhDs, and has another 1,000 or so to go...

I think what's important here is not so much who believes what, but that the "consensus of opinion" that we hear so much about doesn't really exist.

For my money, I'm not sure that the scientific world should ever feel comfortable saying "the debate is over." They certainly shouldn't feel comfortable saying it about man-made global warming. It just seems antithetical to the scientific process.

Think Again!

So, you've been keeping up on your science? Well, now that you've read about how soft drinks are harmful to your children, or how obesity kills 400,000 people a year, or how global warming has nearly made the polar bear extinct...you should read this article, which lists the top ten most embarrassing moments in health and environmental science for 2004.

The list spotlights individuals and organizations that -- through exaggerated claims, bad judgment, and/or hidden agendas -- have most egregiously undermined public confidence in the scientific community’s capacity to conduct sound and unbiased research.

JunkScience.com has exposed and debunked flawed research and unfounded scientific claims since 1996.

Re: The polar bear "extinction":

A Canadian Press Newswire story earlier this year reported that, in three Arctic villages, polar bears "are so abundant there's a public safety issue." Local polar bears reportedly increased from about 2,100 in 1997 to as many as 2,600 in 2004. Inuits wanted to kill more bears, which are "fearsome predators."

An aerial survey of Alaskan polar bears published in Arctic (December 2003) reported a greater polar bear density than previous survey estimates dating to 1987.

If polar bears are getting skinnier as the 1999 study suggested, it may be due to greater numbers subsisting on the same level of available food. After all, harvesting Alaskan polar bears has been limited by the Marine Mammal Protection Act and international agreements since 1972.

This might become one of my new favorite sites.