Category Archives: Science

He Said That? 9/30/17

From Albert Einstein (1879–1955), theoretical physicist who published the special and general theories of relativity and contributed in other areas of physics. He won the Nobel Prize in physics for his explanation of the photoelectric effect. From “What Life Means to Einstein: An Interview by George Sylvester Viereck” The Saturday Evening Post (26 October 1929):

Reading after a certain age diverts the mind too much from its creative pursuits. Any man who reads too much and uses his own brain too little falls into lazy habits of thinking, just as the man who spends too much time in the theater is tempted to be content with living vicariously instead of living his own life.

Advertisements

He Said That? 9/14/17

From Richard Lamm (born 1935), American politician, writer, Certified Public Accountant, college professor, and lawyer.

All we know about the new economic world tells us that nations which train engineers will prevail over those which train lawyers. No nation has ever sued its way to greatness.

He Said That? 9/12/17

From Frank Herbert (1920–1986), American science fiction writer, Heretics of Dune (1984):

Bureaucracy destroys initiative. There is little that bureaucrats hate more than innovation, especially innovation that produces better results than the old routines. Improvements always make those at the top of the heap look inept. Who enjoys appearing inept?

Babies On Drugs In America? 1984 Predicted It! by Chris Campbell

This is pharmocological barbarism. From Chris Campbell at lfb.org:

Why “two steps back, one step forward” can be a recipe for success…

Over a million kids in America six years old and under are on psychiatric drugs — mostly to treat anxiety.

Let that sink in.

I have to ask. Is the U.S. really becoming this out of touch? And I mean that literally.

Author Ray Williams, a contributor to Psychology Today, offered an important question back in 2010: “In our desire to have a politically correct and safe social environment, or an environment of instant communication, have we lost sight of the most important aspect of human development and culture  — physical touch?”

The science is in: After food, water and shelter, there’s little more important to kids, especially babies, than human contact. Without simple human contact, in fact, babies can die.

This is the case, actually, to varying degrees, for all mammals.

In many litters of puppies and kittens, for example, there are sometimes one or two animals that come out enfeebled — as the “runts.”

The weakness of the runts, felt by the mother during nursing, is a sign to the mother it likely won’t survive. To make sure her genes have the best chance for survival, she must use her limited resources wisely.

As a result, the mother doesn’t lick or nurture the runt. The mother still allows the runt to feed (other species don’t even go that far), but it refuses to show the runt affection.

It’s hard to understate how catastrophic this is for the runt. A certain amount of maternal licking and nuzzling is necessary. The affection, we now know, turns on the production of a certain growth hormone in the brain. Without it, food cannot be metabolized properly and healthy growth and development is impossible. If the runt continues to be ignored, even if it still gets plenty to eat, it will eventually shrivel up and die.

It’s the same for humans. Without human contact at the earliest of age, the immune system is essentially shot. The affected becomes vulnerable to all sorts of ailments and diseases.

To continue reading: Babies On Drugs In America?

2001: A Space Odyssey of Transcendent, or Transcendental, Evolution? by Doug “Uncola” Lynn

Here’s another intriguing think piece, combining cinema, science, art, philosophy, and a wildly creative imagination, from Doug “Uncola” Lynn at theburningplatform.com:

By Doug “Uncola” Lynn via TheBurningPlatform.com

The screen is dark.  Eerie and oddly dissonant music begins to play. The screen remains black.  At two-minutes and fifty seconds the music stops, followed by six seconds of silence over the blank nothingness before the Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer MGM logo fills the screen as the symphonically ascending chords and drumbeats of Richard Strauss’ Also Sprach Zarathustra increase in volume.  In a view from the moon, the sun rises behind and then above the blue sphere of the earth.

The Dawn of Man

A series of colorful still-shots reveal a primordial sunrise then transition to daylight shots of desert scenes, against the isolated sound of the wind howling.  White bones are shown on the dry, rocky ground under mammals resembling pigs that are rooting in near proximity to prehistoric monkey-men. Two separate tribes of the ape-like creatures scream and wildly gesticulate on each side of a watering hole before one side cautiously retreats.  An ancient ancestor of the leopard lies prone over the neck of its dead zebra prey; the leopard’s eyes reflective, like mini-suns embedded in the shadow of its skull, ever watching.

The viewer feels a part of the experience, eons ago, sensing the danger and harsh living conditions of multitudinous mammals teeming on the austere earth beneath the strangely serene, ancient sky. The nights appear cold in blue moonlight as the tribe of monkey-men huddle in a cave, listening to the guttural growls of predators nearby.  Primeval primates, male and female alike; waiting anxiously, their bloodshot eyes shifting in apprehension.

To continue reading: 2001: A Space Odyssey of Transcendent, or Transcendental, Evolution?

Image

Climate Science? from The Burning Platform

New Climate Study Throws A Wrench In The Global Warming Debate: “Our New Technical Paper… Will Likely Be Ignored”, by Mac Slavo

There may be global warming, but it may well be natural and not anthropogenic. From Mac Slavo at shtfplan.com:

It’s not surprising that so many people believe the idea that global warming is being cause almost entirely by human activity, given the fact that most scientists seem to believe the same thing. But scientists should probably ask themselves why there is still such a large cohort of “deniers” as they like to call them, who are adamant that anthropogenic climate change is a scam.

The reason why is that the scientific community has been caught many times tampering with climate data and making outlandish claims. The celebrities and politicians who promote this cause have also been caught on many occasions, living in palatial mansions, flying across the world in private jets, and generally just living lives of excess that produce so much more carbon that the average person. Given these facts, how could anyone take the global warming arguments seriously?

What also doesn’t help their cause, is when reputable scientists question climate change dogma. Recently, two Australian scientists published a paper that explains why the shifts in global temperature that we see today, are likely entirely natural.

Jennifer Marohasy, a scientist with a rather long list of impressive credentials, which includes the founding of The Climate Modeling Laboratory, opens her startling climate report with a dose of reality. “Our new technical paper … will likely be ignored,” she writes at The Spectator Australia.

She goes on to explain why, “Because after applying the latest big data technique to six 2,000 year-long proxy-temperature series we cannot confirm that recent warming is anything but natural – what might have occurred anyway, even if there was no industrial revolution.”

At the crux of their argument, is the fact that global temperatures were actually warmer during the middle ages, which used to be considered common knowledge for years, and is often denied by many climate change proponents today. These researchers confirmed that the world was indeed warmer before the industrial revolution. And that of course suggests that human activity doesn’t have nearly as much of an impact on the climate as most environmentalists claim.

To continue reading; New Climate Study Throws A Wrench In The Global Warming Debate: “Our New Technical Paper… Will Likely Be Ignored”