Archive | Science and Nature RSS feed for this section

Oregon asks to kill salmon-eating birds – East Oregonian: Free

28 Apr

Oregon asks to kill salmon-eating birds – East Oregonian: Free.

Oregon officials were successful in getting permission to kill sea lions that feed on protected salmon trying to swim upriver to spawn. Now they want federal approval to shoot a sea bird that eats millions of baby salmon trying to reach the ocean.

This is precisely why nature-lovers should let nature care for itself.


Spin this!

4 Apr

NV Energy windmill program generates rebates, little electricity – Friday, March 30, 2012 | 2 a.m. – Las Vegas Sun.

As first reported by the Reno Gazette-Journal, one turbine that cost the city $21,000 to install saved the city $4 on its energy bill. Overall, $416,000 worth of turbines have netted the city $2,800 in energy savings.

Yeah, that’s sooooome good investment you got there.

I’m deeply hurt

18 Sep

and offended on so many levels.

The world’s largest sperm bank is telling redheads to keep their semen.

Demand for ginger-haired donors is so low that Cryos International says they needn’t bother donating.

“There are too many redheads in relation to demand.”

Pass the tissues, sniff, please.

Where, oh Where, is Global Warming?

7 Feb

Yikes, the Cold Miser has been busy lately!

Hundreds participate in snowball fight in Washington.  Looks like they’re having so much fun!

Here’s the link to the video.  Wouldn’t it be great if we chose to solve all the world’s conflicts with a good ‘ole snowball fight?  Or better, we could have a water gun fight in the summer and snowball fight in the winter.  Twice a year events = world peace.

Sad news lately for the global warming nuts.  Seems like they’ve fallen off their pedestal … sigh.

The Great Global Warming Collapse
Scientists Hid Flaws in Data
India forms new climate change body; Rejects it’s own leading scientist at the helm of the UN panel
They broke the law by not responding to requests under the Freedom of Information Act

Oh well, if we run out of firewood, here’s a suggestion:

Fire or Ice?

5 Dec

The recent climategate scandal jogged my husband’s memory of a magazine cover he saw in the school library back in the 1970’s.  (Yes, I know, it’s ridiculous to be able to remember stuff from that long ago!)  Anyway, maybe it was this one:

This Time magazine of June 24, 1974 warns of another ice age:

… when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.

About a year later, the Newsweek edition of April 28, 1975 contained a similar article called “The Cooling World,” complete with this nifty graph:

Just a bit odd that over the past 30 or so years, there’s been a complete reversal from the certainty of global cooling to that of global warming.  Good grief.

Anyway, this news has also reminded me of something from my old school days–a poem by Robert Frost.  Pretty smart guy there.

Fire and Ice
by Robert Frost

Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I’ve tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To know that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.


4 Dec

I do not believe in man-made global warming.   I particularly dislike Al Gored-head, and I don’t appreciate the way this has been rammed down our throats.  Climate Skeptic sums it up well:

For years, with the media’s active participation, criticism of the mainstream scientific position on global warming has been painted as somehow outside the bounds of reasonable discourse.  Skeptics are called “deniers,” with the intent to equate them with those who deny the Holocaust.

Enter Climategate 2009.  Apparently somebody hacked into some computers at the Climate Research Unit (CRU) in Britain and posted a bunch of their emails and documents on the web.  It has caused quite an uproar.

First, the emails include a lot of suspicious comments, like using a “trick” to “hide the decline” (of global temps), and, “We can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t,” plus others.  But those scientists and their supporters have poo-pooed the outcry, claiming that the comments were taken out of context and though the wording was sometimes unfortunate, it was just some technical lingo that we non-scientists don’t understand.  Hum, sure, whatever you say, geeky science dudes.

Now, science was definitely NOT my favorite subject in school, but I do remember some of the basics.  Maybe you recall The Scientific Method for Dummies:

  1. You say, “Hey, look at that!  Wonder why that happens?”
  2. You say, “Hum, maybe it’s because of *fill in idea here*”
  3. You test out your idea and re-test over and over in different ways.
  4. If the results aren’t what you expected, your idea was stupid, you moron.
  5. If the results ARE what you expected, well, you might just be on to something!
  6. Then you get other folks much smarter than you to test it out and try their best to prove you wrong.
  7. If everybody keeps coming up with the same results, then you got yourself a bonafide Scientific Theory, woo-hoo!

Ok, here’s a more serious explanation,

Science works by one person making a claim, and backing it up with the data and methods that they used to make the claim. Other scientists then attack the claim by (among other things) trying to replicate the first scientist’s work. If they can’t replicate it, it doesn’t stand.

But, according to the emails, the folks at CRU weren’t too keen on having their findings reviewed or even questioned.  In fact, they tried to ostracize dissenters and even control what was published in peer review publications.  The emails also show a blatant attempt to deny access to the raw data and the analysis methods used in the CRU research.  Watts Up With That? contains a lengthy post detailing Willis Eschenbach’s attempts:

As far as I know, I am the person who made the original Freedom Of Information Act to CRU that started getting all this stirred up. I was trying to get access to the taxpayer funded raw data out of which they built the global temperature record. I was not representing anybody, or trying to prove a point. I am not funded by Mobil, I’m an amateur scientist with a lifelong interest in the weather and climate. I’m not “directed” by anyone, I’m not a member of a right-wing conspiracy. I’m just a guy trying to move science forwards.

The folks at CRU didn’t want to release this stuff, claiming their software codes were their own intellectual property.  They never released the actual raw data; they basically told Willis, here’s where we got the data, so go get it yourself if you want to.

Maybe they didn’t want the data nor their software files revealed, because it was all a bunch of crap. From The Toronto Sun,

I’ve been poring over one of many leaked computer files from the “climategate” scandal.  This document has the innocuous header “HARRY_READ_Me.txt.”  Reading “HARRY_READ_ME.txt” it’s clear the CRU’s files were a mess. The programmer laments huge gaps in data, bug-filled programs and worries about all the guesswork he’s doing. His comments suggest the problems go back years.

And likewise from The Devil’s Kitchen 

In other words, these (data files) are the guts of CRU’s actual computer models—the data, the code and the applications.  And they are, by all accounts, a total bloody mess.

So, how did these scientists get so terribly off track?  Perhaps, as Mr. Dolby says, they were blinded with science (click for video).