Category: Science

A simple pendulum debunks the Moon landings

I watched this video last evening as I perused a number of videos recommended by Trevor Weaver in his book The Apollo Hoax: How Did They Do It? I had long before decided that once done, I would deposit this book upon the circular file. It is not indexed and suffers from typos, typical of any self-published effort. Typos in published works are disconcerting. How hard is it for someone to review a manuscript and fix it up? I suffer from typos here, but I am my own editor, and simply do not see what I have written until after it is published. And I can fix them. In books, they stand. Typos in a book are an unforgiveable sin.

Nonetheless, the Weaver book led me to the video that follows.

Continue reading “A simple pendulum debunks the Moon landings” →

An appeal to scientific sensibility

I recall being deeply discouraged when I heard the outcome of Held v Montana, the children’s lawsuit where a judge ruled that kids were indeed protected under the Montana Constitution from greenhouse gases. “Where is science in all of this?” I wondered, along with wanting to know who put the kids up to it. Montana has a constitutional provision that its citizens are entitled to a “clean and healthful environment.” That’s a bit like saying that we are also entitled to a healthy diet, quality health care, intelligent public officials and really good school teachers. The problem with all of that is definitions. People of sound mind will disagree on all of it, and the conflicts that arise can only be called “irresolvable.”

Nonetheless, the constitutional language is there, and District Court Judge Kathy Seeley rule in favor of the kids, or I should say, the people that put them up to it. Later, the Montana Supreme Court went along, so now we are dealing with precedent.

Continue reading “An appeal to scientific sensibility” →

Consensus in science can only mean no science is in the works

Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science, consensus is irrelevant. There is no such things as consensus science. If it is consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. (Michael Crichton, 1942-2008)

I don’t know enough of science to say this with any certainty, but I do not think there is much real science going on anymore. It is discussed here on this blog frequently, how Moon landings, space travel in general, atomic bombs, nuclear power (which I suspect is real**) are all fake. I am a complete skeptic about geology and evolution. Weather forecasts are indeed reliable for a few days time – there is good work going on there. Bridges do not collapse, nor buildings, which look like boxes. That says that engineering is reliable, but that architecture is not very creative.

Crichton’s remarks above are aimed directly at the climate change regime, which relies on a fabricated “consensus” of 97% of scientists to sell itself as real. Never mind that the consensus was not real, even as then-president Obama used it in a Tweet. The idea behind it was to prevent questioning of the fabricated science that was underway. It has been used as a hammer, and “scientists” and researchers have been cowed into submission by brute force by the progenitors of this fake movement.

Continue reading “Consensus in science can only mean no science is in the works” →

Toddler Thinker and Professor Know-it-all

Jan Spreen – https://janspreen.com

Justification of the exchange here-after

A radial force cannot possibly make an object rotate tangentially – the well-known stone on a string gets its momentum from a tangential force – from which it follows that artificial satellites cannot exist. To that assertion, people invariably react, very indignantly, with the argument that the moon rotates around the earth under the influence of gravity. So I am completely wrong. Or if not, how then do I explain the moon’s orbit? I have always refused to go into that, because such an explanation can only be a very questionable metaphysical hypothesis, on which I could very easily be shot down. But because I’m not getting anywhere with my ideas anyway, I thought: “What do I have to lose? I’m going to make an attempt. Interesting and exciting, such a daring hypothesis!”

Below is a dialogue between Toddler Thinker – as he modestly calls himself – and a kind, presumably quite elderly scholar. The latter has apparently introduced himself with some self-mockery to Toddler Thinker as Professor Know-it-all. Know-it-all has nothing to defend, it seems, and he apparently finds it amusing to have his somewhat dusty and enumerative way of expressing himself refreshed by a funny little fellow with challenging ideas.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Continue reading “Toddler Thinker and Professor Know-it-all” →

Lawsuit based on bad science … ain’t dead yet

I refer you to an article, Missoula judge dismisses federal climate lawsuit, plaintiffs plan to appeal, which you will find in the Billings (Montana) Gazette, or any of the other related Lee Newspaper outlets. Unfortunately, the article is paywalled. At one time I subscribed to the Gazette, paying $1.00 for three months. I thought the price was a bit excessive, but only modestly so. More recently, I have subscribed for one year for $26.00, wildly overpriced, but still, affordable.

The article is centered on a lawsuit brought by “Our Children’s Trust”, a group of naive and poorly educated kids used as fronts in a cynical maneuver to bypass science and legislatures and make “Climate Change” an actionable offense. By that means misanthropic morons can take legal action against our society. The judge, U.S. District Judge Dana Christensen, bent the knee before the CC crowd, but said in conclusion that “… while this court is certainly troubled by the very real harms presented by climate change and the challenged [executive orders’] effect on carbon dioxide emissions, this concern does not automatically confer upon it the power to act.”

Continue reading “Lawsuit based on bad science … ain’t dead yet” →

Some historic perspective on the carnivore diet

A commenter, Rob, wondered if we are not better off on a no-carbohydrate diet.

Could it be possible that a diet of no carbs is the healthiest for humans? Maybe early humans existed for thousands of years through ice ages eating only meat. Don’t they find fossils of animal bones butchered with stone tools and not much evidence of any other food? Our digestive system is very different from a chimps or gorillas which both are able to digest vegetation much better than us. Maybe rollercoasting insulin and glucose levels are the main cause of health problems?

My own opinion, not without reading over the years, is yes, we could easily survive on a no-carbohydrate diet. Having just indulged in two Lindor chocolate truffles (my ‘reward’ for a long bike ride), I can only suggest that Rob is correct, and that it would be just a tad boring. It so happens that I just read a piece by Gary Taubes, science journalist, who has been writing about this subject for decades. In his latest piece, Tales from the History of Carnivore Diets, he offers the following (rather long but riveting) quotes:

Continue reading “Some historic perspective on the carnivore diet” →

Good Calories, Bad Calories

The above title of this post is also the title of a book published in 2008 by science writer Gary Taubes, full title Good Calories, Bad Calories, Fat, Carbs, and the Controversial Science of Diet and Health.** At 609 pages (counting bibliography and index), I guess we could call it a tome. However, I found it hard to put down.

We had moved to Colorado, and sometime prior to 2011 we went to Boulder to hear Noam Chomsky speak. We got probably the last two tickets and were at the very back of the balcony. I remember it well because I had a hard time squeezing my fat ass into my seat. Some time after that I told my wife that I had to change my eating habits. I had read Taubes’ book, and it made sense to me. Here’s a partial list of the things I gave up:

Pizza, cookies, ice cream, spaghetti (all pastas), bread, beer, pizza, donuts, candy, candy bars, chocolate, potatoes, pizza, onion rings, French fries,  … man I love pizza. Also, many fruits and vegetables have high carbohydrate value. Here’s a link to a site that lists good low-carb fruits and vegetables. Strawberries are always in season at our house. White wine is a safe bet over red.

Continue reading “Good Calories, Bad Calories” →

IPCC: Just Bad at Science … or Engaged in Science Fraud?

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) and climate alarmists in general don’t think the sun is terribly important in the matter of the climate of our planet. As absurd as that sounds, there is a reason: The UN’s political Agenda (established by Resolution A/RES/43/53 of the UN General Assembly in 1988) is to promote Anthropogenic Climate Change. That is the cart that precedes AGW and its so-called science horse. If the sun was shown to be a major player in global climate, it would short circuit the AGW movement. But that creates a problem, as the sun is indeed the major player behind our planet’s climate.

Continue reading “IPCC: Just Bad at Science … or Engaged in Science Fraud?” →

Isaac Newton on head butting

A long long time ago I knew a guy in Bozeman who worked in the campus bookstore, let’s call him Roger. It was at least five years after 911, as I had a blog at the time and did not start this blog until 2006. I mentioned to him that what we saw on 911 violated Newton’s laws of motion, and therefore could not have happened as we saw on TV.

He got very pensive on me, and said that experts, real experts, within that university were pondering Newton’s third law of motion in light of the events of that day. Do you get that? “Experts” in the engineering department of Montana State University were afraid to speak up about what happened that day. They would probably  lose their jobs. That’s how I interpreted Roger’s thoughtful comment.

  1. An object at rest remains at rest, and an object in motion remains in motion at constant speed and in a straight line unless acted on by an unbalanced force.
  2. The acceleration of an object depends on the mass of the object and the amount of force applied.
  3. Whenever one object exerts a force on another object, the second object exerts an equal and opposite on the first.

These are called “laws” and not hypotheses, not theories, meaning that in our world they always work. The have not been disproven.

Continue reading “Isaac Newton on head butting” →

Science Friday

The Inconvenient Skeptic – why global warming is a scientific impossibility

I am citing John Kehr again because I have finally made my way through his book, taking down 21 pages of notes and 12,680 words. That’s a lot to process, but then, as I see it, reading a book without paying such close attention means that the experience will not stick. I should, however, stick to fiction to avoid the intense work involved in dictating content from highlighted passages.

Continue reading “Science Friday” →