Media beats up Willie Soon, but turns a blind eye to EPA-funded researchers shilling for EPA’s biggest rule

Remember just two months ago when the media savaged climate skeptic Willie Soon for supposedly failing to disclose industry funding? It’s a pity the media doesn’t. Continue reading

Another year, another climate meeting to beat up warming theories

Here is an announcements about the Heartland Climate Meeting, 10th.

I will be there, moderating a discussion about human health effects research misconduct by the EPA and its running dog allies.

My panel will be fun, a Physician/engineer/anesthesiologist, Charles Battig, MD, an epidemiologist, and physicist James E. Enstrom PhD, and a statistician/geneticist, Stan Young PhD.

Not all the skeptic are coming–if Heartland had all the money that the greenies have they could have a bigger meeting that included all the individuals who have appeared over the years–but since the greens have intimidated the academic and philanthropic community, the business community and industry, Heartland has to get by on a limited budget.

I get so tired of hearing about the evil Koch machine and how it buys skeptics–I want some of that big money–maybe even just a little. In my many years of advocacy I have never received some of that gravy that goes to prostitutes like McKibben and Mann and all the academics who get government trough money.

An Archive on the inequities–we are treated like the red-headed step child and the top ten green NGOs measure their assets in hundreds of millions, even billions.

A new formaldehyde standard is not needed

The EPA is considering revising formaldehyde regulations and, unsurprisingly, getting some pushback from construction materials and home furnishing industries.  Continue reading

Autism epidemic? Again, a diagnosis related phenomenon?

More on this troubliing entity–that causes so much family and individual suffering and stress.

Continue reading

Oh, so now natural selection doesn’t work–random chance is the answer?

Anyone who has looked at what passes for evolutionary science would recall that Karl Popper, until he was intimidated out of it, said that evolutionary theory was not science.

Sorry Karl, you coward–evolution is held up as a science because it is essential to comfortable atheism as Dawkins says.  However experiments in establishing evolutionary theory are really weak stuff.  The Miller Urey soup doesn’t work, the transitional species don’t show up in the fossil record, and lord knows chemicals are not capable of being “selfish” for development and progress.

Evolution social science studies are equally plagued by confirmation bias and tunnel vision.

I am yet to see a reliable evidence of anything.  The only thing we know is we all share carbon and reproduce and replicate by means of DNA.

After that how becomes a daunting problem.  So evolutionary theorists are ready to just say–well it’s random, doesn’t seem to be a selection process.

Survival and reproduction seem to be somewhat independent of great achievements in evolution–if you get what I mean.  The 3 toed sloth is slow and easy to catch, but it survived, for example.

Variability in birds as discussed here reminds me of the speculation on Galapagos finches and the moths that were different colors–so, teleologically random changes without any apparent selection could still could fit with the Darwinian theory.   What is selection anyway–except and after the fact determination that something had an advantage of some kind to improve its survival.  It goes round and round and that’s why Popper said it isn’t science.   It’s sort of a tautology.

However many people belong to the Darwin Religion and adhere to it strongly–I just am not ready yet, I guess, due to lack of evidence and lack of affection for circular arguments built around the fact that the biosphere is, as the Borg would say–comprised of carbon units and will be assimilated.

Damn the Borg were a bunch of bad boys.  Gave me the creeps.  They didn’t talk or act bad–they were bad.

See, I don’t care whether there is a God or not, I just don’t think it appropriate to give chemicals a will and self awareness.  I think we don’t know what makes for functional complexity.  Period.  I can suggest we keep looking for the selfish gene–it may be an organizing priciple improperly named by Dr. Dawkins.

Sensible social and political science on poverty and civility

There is no reason that poverty should create savages.  No excuse.

Continue reading

Food and weight

My unscientific observations on food and weight control. Mostly a combination of unscientific and scientific fantasy.  Continue reading

I can’t believe that AMSPEC put up this essay

Emmett Tyrell always has struck me as a guy with a fitness fetish.

Continue reading