Category Archives: Science

Science Denier, from Scott Adams


A Perspective on Electric Vehicles, by Gary Novak

It is more inefficient to power a car with electricity than it is with gasoline. From Gary Novak at Science Errors on

An electric auto will convert 5-10% of the energy in natural gas into motion. A normal vehicle will convert 20-30% of the energy in gasoline into motion. That’s 3 or 4 times more energy recovered with an internal combustion vehicle than an electric vehicle.

Electricity is a specialty product. It’s not appropriate for transportation. It looks cheap at this time, but that’s because it was designed for toasters, not transportation. Increase the amount of wiring and infrastructure by a factor of a thousand, and it’s not cheap.

Electricity does not scale up properly to the transportation level due to its miniscule nature. Sure, a whole lot can be used for something, but at extraordinary expense and materials.

Using electricity as an energy source requires two energy transformation steps, while using petroleum requires only one. With electricity, the original energy, usually chemical energy, must be transformed into electrical energy; and then the electrical energy is transformed into the kinetic energy of motion. With an internal combustion engine, the only transformation step is the conversion of chemical energy to kinetic energy in the combustion chamber.

The difference matters, because there is a lot of energy lost every time it is transformed or used. Electrical energy is harder to handle and loses more in handling.

The use of electrical energy requires it to move into and out of the space medium (aether) through induction. Induction through the aether medium should be referred to as another form of energy, but physicists sandwich it into the category of electrical energy. Going into and out of the aether through induction loses a lot of energy.

Another problem with electricity is that it loses energy to heat production due to resistance in the wires. A short transmission line will have 20% loss built in, and a long line will have 50% loss built in. These losses are designed in, because reducing the loss by half would require twice as much metal in the wires. Wires have to be optimized for diameter and strength, which means doubling the metal would be doubling the number of transmission lines.

To continue reading: A Perspective on Electric Vehicles

Paradigm Shift: RFK Jr Goes Off on Vaccine Safety Live on TV, No One Attacks Him, by Jack Burns

I’ve reposted the entire article by Jack Burns on, along with the video of Tucker Carlson’s interview with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on Fox News, along with my comment on the article, a comment to my comment, and my comment to that comment (with minor edits). When you see my comments, you’ll understand why.

When Robert F. Kennedy Jr was a guest this week on Tucker Carlson’s show (FoxNews), he said it was only the second show he’d ever been allowed to discuss the topic of vaccination dangers. The reason why, he says, is because shows are paid billions per year by pharmaceutical companies in advertising dollars and they don’t want his message to be discussed.

RFK Jr., like many others, is sounding the alarm with respect to childhood vaccinations. Many of the vaccines are mandatory, and not vaccinating one’s children, as TFTP has reported, runs the risk of having one’s children taken away, and put into the custody of the state. Some parents are imprisoned by the State for not vaccinating their children. Still, others are made to appear unstable for even suggesting vaccines cause autism and are dangerous for the health of children, even though one executive-level Center For Disease Control researcher blew the whistle that the CDC knew they covered up information supporting that case.

He said he’d only ever received three vaccinations in his lifetime, but a child today receives dozens upon dozens of shots and boosters. The reasons why may shock our readers. The son of Robert F. Kennedy, of the highly respected Kennedy Clan, says the pharmaceutical companies became untouchable in 1989 when they were given blanket immunity from prosecution for their vaccinations. Claiming the industry then saw vaccinations as a potential “gold rush,” he said they then created shots for all types of illnesses, many of which no one will even be exposed to, all for the sake of profit.

During the interview, RFK Jr. stated only three vaccines have had the preservative made from mercury removed. That preservative is called thimerosal and it is still found in the flu vaccine as RFK Jr. accurately stated. Appealing to Carlson’s viewers’ common sense, he stated, “It is the most potent neurotoxin known to man that is not radioactive.” He said if when the nurse drops the vaccine and breaks it on the floor the building is supposed to be evacuated because it’s considered a hazardous material. The Kennedy son asked, “How can we inject that into a child?”

The vaccine safety advocate, who’s already met with President Trump, is calling for a commission to be created to study vaccines which can objectively look at all the evidence surrounding vaccine safety. RJK Jr. cited a Danish study, funded by the Danish government, which examined the safety of the Tdap vaccine when given to African children. “Virtually every kid in Africa gets it. What they found…they did a vaccinated versus non-vaccinated study…what they concluded was...they said that vaccine is killing more people than Diphtheria, Pertussis, and Tetanus combined (for which the Tdap vaccinated).”

He said the kids who got the vaccine were “ten times more likely to die from the vaccine” in the two months following the vaccination, than those children who did not receive the vaccine.

“I’m called anti-vax all the time because the pharmaceutical company gives so much money,” to quash his message. He praised Carlson and commended the talk show host/news mogul for allowing him to come on his show and help to start the debate on a national level. Carlson defended his decision to have RFK Jr. discuss the subject because he said, “I think you ought to be allowed to ask legitimate questions without being attacked,” and added he hopes RFK Jr. is actually successful in getting the debate going.

Comment by Robert Gore:
I can show you pictures of our only child, Austin, when he was a baby. He’s usually got a huge smile, and his eyes are bright and alert. After California’s vaccination regime, and one set of shots to which he had a particularly bad reaction, we received a diagnosis of autism when he was three years old. As vaccinations have taken off, so has so-called autism. It is not autism; it is mercury poisoning. As Mr. Kennedy notes, most vaccines are suspended in thimerosol (mercury), which is used as a preservative. Vaccination proponents conflate the two, and say that those who question vaccine safety are anti-vaccine. I am not necessarily anti-vaccine, although I think many of them are of no benefit. However, the safety of mercury is not in question, it’s dangerously toxic and damages the brain and nervous system.


If you know anyone who is expecting a baby, or anyone with an infant, inform them of the dangers of vaccines. They can, in some states, request vaccines without thimerosol. They can also insist that vaccines not be bunched together, so the child does not receive a concentrated dose of mercury all at once. If it is too late and your child has been labelled autistic, there are many things you can do. We undertook numerous therapies and activities for Austin, and he’s now a sophomore at UNM and just joined a fraternity (milestones for a kid who was in special classes up to fourth grade and had few friends). For more information, my wife wrote a short book, available on Amazon: Rescued: a story of hope & help for parents of children with autism.

Comment by reader T4C:

Here’s the link to Roberta’s…yes, Roberta and Robert…what are the odds?…anyways, it looks like a great resource:

While I haven’t read your wife’s story yet Robert, I would love to read any “clips” you may
have from that journey. You’re a very good writer so I know your “stories” will be worth my time.

Then again maybe you’ve already penned essays on that era in you life and I’m just not aware of it.

Loved what you wrote above.

Comment by Robert Gore:


Thank you. I haven’t written much about Austin and his autism, or mercury poisining, not because it isn’t an amazing story, but because it is. It is so special that I have a hard time talking or writing about it, but I do warn expectant parents or parents with newborns whenever I have a chance. Roberta certainly does Austin’s story justice. When he was a child in special ed classes, we could have got a bet a very long odds that he would ever be able to function even minimally in the “normal” world, or as it is called by those in the austism community, the “neuro-typical” world. Both of us worked hard to bring him out from his isolation and to constantly put him in situations with other kids. I think just about every weekend for seven or eight years we would take him to parks, indoor and outdoor gyms, swimming, movies, arcades, miniature golf courses, play dates–anything to get him with other kids. He had speech therapy, autism therapy, socialization groups, piano lessons, horseback riding lessons, tennis lessons, swimming lessons, basketball lessons, and he played basketball, flag football, lacrosse, and ran cross-country. He picked up snowboarding instantly–the first day he went he was coming down blue square slopes (medium difficulty) by the end of the day.

You don’t know what’s effective and what’s not, but somehow it all came together and Austin has made incredible progress, to the point where if you didn’t know about his past, you probably wouldn’t guess that he was once diagnosed with autism. It helps that he’s so darn smart. Heavy metal poisoning tends to damage the part of the brain that governs socialization and responding to social cues. However, never underestimate the brain’s plasticity and adaptability. Austin on his own has learned social basics that come to most people naturally, almost unconsciously. As I said in the prior comment, Austin is in college and in a fraternity, and he is a great kid. He gets good grades and he’ll work this summer. No matter what I’ve achieved or what I do the rest of the my life, the thing I’ll always be proudest of is what Roberta and I did with Austin, and what he’s done for himself.

GloBull Warming Hokum On ‘Earth Day’ by Karl Denninger

Karl Denninger takes on the global warmists. From Denninger on a guest post at

Let’s cut the crap, shall we?

This is scientific fact. It is a record of history showing temperatures and CO2 levels.  You will note that there is no correlation between temperature and CO2 level.  In fact, there appears to be an inverse correlation in many (but not all) instances.

I remind you that the basic truth of science when it comes to correlation and causation is as follows:

1. Correlation can never prove causation.  It can only suggest that it might be true.

2. The inverse of correlation, however, strongly indicates that causation is absent if it occurs just once.

Well, it has been inverted when we’re talking about CO2 and temperature — and far more often than once.

In the Precambrian era CO2 concentrations fell quite a bit while temperatures rose.  In the Silurian period, same.  In the Carboniferous period, again.  At the end of the Jurasic period, again temperatures went up while CO2 levels fell.  Finally, at the exit of the Jurasic period CO2 went up while temperature slowly fell; we believe that happened due to a large asteroid impact (which would make sense as to the step function) but the continued fall in temperatures does not correlate with a further rise in CO2 — until the exit of the Paleocene epoch.

There was a correlated rise in the Miocene epoch.  But then we saw changes in temperature — both up and down — with a nearly-constant CO2 concentration.

Is there scientific evidence that CO2 levels cause global temperature change?  No.  The science says otherwise absent specific and detailed means of disproving why that correlation has been so-often not only absent but inverted.

To continue reading: GloBull Warming Hokum On ‘Earth Day’

He Said That? 3/23/17

From Christopher Essex, professor of applied mathematics at Western University in London, Ontario, Taken by Storm: The Troubled Science, Policy, and Politics of Global Warming (coauthored with Ross McKitrick in 2002):

This seems charmingly paradoxical: scientists seek one truth but often voice many opinions; journalists often speak of many truths while voicing a uniform view.

He Said That? 3/18/17

From Carl Sagan (1934–1996), American astronomer, cosmologist, astrophysicist, astrobiologist, author, science popularizer, and science communicator in astronomy and other natural sciences:

In science it often happens that scientists say, ‘You know that’s a really good argument; my position is mistaken,’ and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn’t happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion.

How Leonardo DiCaprio Can Persuade Me on Climate Change, by Scott Adams

Endlessly repeating that climate-change science is “settled” doesn’t even address the question of whether the claims made by that “science” are even persuasive. Scott Adams thinks they are not. From Adams on a guest post at

You probably know that actor Leonardo DiCaprio is a climate activist, and he is trying to persuade the world that climate change is both real and serious. Someone asked me on Twitter what it would take for DiCaprio (for example) to persuade a person like me.

I’ll take a swing at that.

For starters, you must separate the questions of real and serious. The real part refers to the climate models. The serious part refers to economic models. Those are different topics.

If you want to convince me that climate change is real, the best approach is to abandon the current method that packages climate models in a fashion that is identical to well-known scams. (Or hoaxes, if you prefer.)

Let me say this doubly-clear. When I say climate models are packaged in a fashion that is identical to known scams, I am not saying they are scams. I’m saying they are packaged to look exactly like scams. There is no hope for credibility with that communication plan.

To make my point visual, imagine walking into your kitchen and finding an intruder wearing a ski mask and holding a gun. You assume this person is not your friendly neighbor because he is packaged exactly like an armed burglar. If you shoot that intruder, and it turns out to be your neighbor playing a prank, you probably won’t go to jail because it isn’t your fault. The problem was that your neighbor packaged himself to look exactly like an armed burglar.

Climate scientists tell us that there are hundreds of climate models, all somewhat different. I assume that most of them do a good job predicting the past (hindcasting) because otherwise they would not be models at all. Hindcasting is one minimum requirement for being a model in this field, I would assume.

To continue reading: How Leonardo DiCaprio Can Persuade Me on Climate Change