Excellent article below from Breibart.com.
At least businesses like Google know when to call it quits and stop throwing money down a rat hole. Too bad liberal-socialists-progressives in government don’t know when to quit, as they continue to throw hard-earned taxpayer money down any rat hole they can find. Actually liberal-socialists-progressives love to find some secret rat holes in which to throw tax payer cash and claim they are doing it for the common good. They would never, never admit to wasteful government spending and let citizens keep more of their money. For example just look at liberal-socialist-progressive President Obama and his continually propping up many failed projects. I am now thinking about projects like Solyndra, that promised a bright future with renewable energy but failed in a big way. Anyways, read further the article below as it shows how Google experts have wisely given up on so-called renewable energy, at least for now.
22 Nov 2014 at Breitbart.com
Some people call it “renewable energy” but I prefer to call it “alternative energy” because that’s what it really is: an alternative to energy that actually works (eg nuclear and anything made from wonderful, energy-rich fossil fuel.)
Now a pair of top boffins from uber-green Google’s research department have reached the same conclusion.
Ross Konigstein and David Fork, both Stanford PhDs (aerospace engineering; applied physics) were employed on a Google research project which sought to enhance renewable technology to the point where it could produce energy more cheaply than coal. But after four years, the project was closed down. In this post at IEEE Spectrum they tell us why.
We came to the conclusion that even if Google and others had led the way toward a wholesale adoption of renewable energy, that switch would not have resulted in significant reductions of carbon dioxide emissions. Trying to combat climate change exclusively with today’s renewable energy technologies simply won’t work; we need a fundamentally different approach.
Why is renewable energy such a total fail? Because, as Lewis Page explains here, it’s so ludicrously inefficient and impossibly expensive that if ever we were so foolish as to try rolling it out on a scale beyond its current boutique levels, it would necessitate bankrupting the global economy.
In a nutshell, renewable energy is rubbish because so much equipment is needed to make it work – steel, concrete, copper, glass, carbon fibre, neodymium, shipping and haulage – that it very likely uses up more energy than it actually produces.
Yet our political class remains committed to the fantasy that the emperor’s green clothes are perfectly magnificent. Earlier this week, for example, the British government chucked £720 million of taxpayers’ money into a cesspit labelled the Green Climate Fund.
In theory this UN-driven initiative is supposed to help Third World countries cope with the effects of climate change. In reality, all it will do is force on their struggling economies more of the costly, intermittent renewable technologies (wind turbines; solar; etc) which have proved such a disaster for the advanced Western economies.
If we really want to throw money at the developing world so it can combat climate change, then what we should really be doing is insist that it is spent on adaptation projects – not, heaven forfend, ones to do with “decarbonisation.”
Cannes: Video of Hollywood Environmentalists in Anti-Fracking Sting Operation to Debut (Exclusive Video)
More ASTOUNDING BLATANT HYPOCRISY among environmentalists and the Hollywood left #StrangerThanFiction George Orwell would be proud to write this story except its REAL. Where is the outrage?
James O’Keefe says he duped Ed Begley Jr. and Mariel Hemingway into agreeing to get involved with an anti-fracking movie while hiding that its funding comes from Middle Eastern oil interests.
Journalist James O’Keefe, known for his controversial undercover sting operations aimed usually at liberals — is set to unveil at the Cannes Film Festival on Wednesday the first of a group of videos that he says will reveal hypocrisy among Hollywood environmentalists.
In the video, obtained exclusively by The Hollywood Reporter and embedded below, actors Ed Begley Jr. and Mariel Hemingway are duped by a man named “Muhammad,” who is looking to make an anti-fracking movie while hiding that its funding is coming from Middle Eastern oil interests.
Muhammad, accompanied by a man pretending to be an ad executive, seemingly has the two actors agreeing to participate in the scheme, even after he acknowledges…
View original post 1,538 more words
This is a really good point that Brian Thomas is making here. I find the No True Scotsman debate fallacy similar to the Straw Man debate fallacy only the No True Scotsman fallacy is much more subtle.
The Straw Man tactic is to incorrectly characterize or provide a misconception of your opponents position, setting up the straw man, and then proceed to knock down that straw man or attack that false conception. For more precise definition click here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man . I am not saying that Bill Nye used this tactic but I think he, more subtly, used the No True Scotsman fallacy as Brian Thomas points out. Both tactic fallacies shows in a real honest debate that the arguer, the one feeling the need to use such tactics actually feels deeply threatened by his opponents point of view.
Nye vs. Ham Debate: No True Scotsman by Brian Thomas, M.S.
A surprisingly large number of people—some three million—watched live online February 4 as debaters discussed the topic “Is creation a viable model of origins in today’s modern scientific era?” Ken Ham took the affirmative position while “Science Guy” Bill Nye took the negative. During the debate, Nye’s use of a certain fallacy was soon evident, and viewers should beware of this tactic because of the subtle way it can skew perception.
Each time Nye contrasted “Ken Ham’s creation model” of a young world with “us in the scientific community,” he committed the “no true Scotsman” fallacy. Astrophysicist Dr. Jason Lisle wrote in Discerning Truth that this fallacy is committed “when an arguer defines a term in a biased way to protect his argument from rebuttals.”1
The informal fallacy’s name comes from an imaginary conversation in which a Scotsman claims that no Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge. A bystander replies that he, too, is from Scotland but does put sugar on his porridge. The first Scotsman rejoins, “Well, notrue Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.”
What did he do? He essentially redefined the word Scotsman to insulate his argument against virtually any example that refutes it.
The fact that Ham presented specific examples of fully credentialed scientists who adopted the Bible’s creation account of history had no effect on Nye, who continued to insist that scientists are evolutionists—by definition. The “Science Guy” insulated his assertion from scrutiny by defining “scientific” to suit his needs.
The common general definition of science includes observing, measuring, and interpreting natural processes. But Nye’s definition of true science seems to involve observing, measuring, and interpreting natural processes only according to evolutionary tenets.
Nye was wrong to assume that no real scientist could ever hold the creation model, since scores of real scientists have and do. This is amply demonstrated in books like In Six Days: Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation and The Genesis Files, containing 22 interviews with Ph.D. scientists who ascribe to Ham’s creation model and tell their stories.2,3 And of course, early creation scientists forged the paths of each of today’s major scientific branches of inquiry, like Isaac Newton’s physics,4 Matthew Maury’s oceanography, Louis Pasteur’s immunology,5 Michael Faraday’s electromagnetism,6 and George Carver’s agriculture.7,8 Are we to believe that Newton and Pasteur were not real scientists?
Apparently, facts like these do not matter to someone who is so fully committed to the false idea that real scientists only believe in evolution that he is more than willing to adjust the very definition of scientist to preserve his argument.
The fictional Scotsman who actually does put sugar on his porridge was willing to present and perhaps even demonstrate his case. In the same way, a minority of true scientists are willing and prepared to make their cases for biblical and scientific creation. Why would anyone even feel the need to protect their anti-creation definition of scientist with a “no true Scotsman” fallacy unless the evidence for recent creation that believing scientists are prepared to present constitutes a real threat?
Below is an excerpt from Ken Ham’s organization, Answers In Genesis.org. This is a great read! It is among some of their foundation statements or more accurately as is stated by AIG it is among their “Getting Started” articles. Bible believers and evolutionist are all studying the same evidence it is just a matter of interpretations or, even more fundamental to that, it is a matter of presuppositions or axioms. Also, all of us must learn “…how to think rather than just what to think…”
Creation: “Where’s The Proof?”
By Ken Ham, president, AiG–U.S.December 1, 1999
Over the years, many people have challenged me with a question like:
I’ve been trying to witness to my friends. They say they don’t believe the Bible and aren’t interested in the stuff in it. They want real proof that there’s a God who created, and then they’ll listen to my claims about Christianity. What proof can I give them without mentioning the Bible so they’ll start to listen to me?
Briefly, my response is as follows.
Creationists and evolutionists, Christians and non-Christians all have the same evidence—the same facts. Think about it: we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars—the facts are all the same.
The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions. These are things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms). This becomes especially relevant when dealing with past events.
Past and Present
We all exist in the present—and the facts all exist in the present. When one is trying to understand how the evidence came about (Where did the animals come from? How did the fossil layers form? etc.), what we are actually trying to do is to connect the past to the present.
However, if we weren’t there in the past to observe events, how can we know what happened so we can explain the present? It would be great to have a time machine so we could know for sure about past events.
Christians of course claim they do, in a sense, have a “time machine.” They have a book called the Bible which claims to be the Word of God who has always been there, and has revealed to us the major events of the past about which we need to know.
On the basis of these events (Creation, Fall, Flood, Babel, etc.), we have a set of presuppositions to build a way of thinking which enables us to interpret the evidence of the present.
Evolutionists have certain beliefs about the past/present that they presuppose, e.g. no God (or at least none who performed acts of special creation), so they build a different way of thinking to interpret the evidence of the present.
Thus, when Christians and non-Christians argue about the evidence, in reality they are arguing about their interpretations based on their presuppositions.
That’s why the argument often turns into something like:
“Can’t you see what I’m talking about?”
“No, I can’t. Don’t you see how wrong you are?”
“No, I’m not wrong. It’s obvious that I’m right.”
“No, it’s not obvious.” And so on.
These two people are arguing about the same evidence, but they are looking at the evidence through different glasses.
It’s not until these two people recognize the argument is really about the presuppositions they have to start with, that they will begin to deal with the foundational reasons for their different beliefs. A person will not interpret the evidence differently until they put on a different set of glasses—which means to change one’s presuppositions.
I’ve found that a Christian who understands these things can actually put on the evolutionist’s glasses (without accepting the presuppositions as true) and understand how they look at evidence. However, for a number of reasons, including spiritual ones, a non-Christian usually can’t put on the Christian’s glasses—unless they recognize the presuppositional nature of the battle and are thus beginning to question their own presuppositions.
It is of course sometimes possible that just by presenting “evidence,” you can convince a person that a particular scientific argument for creation makes sense “on the facts.” But usually, if that person then hears a different interpretation of the same evidence that seems better than yours, that person will swing away from your argument, thinking they have found “stronger facts.”
However, if you had helped the person to understand this issue of presuppositions, then they will be better able to recognize this for what it is—a different interpretation based on differing presuppositions—i.e. starting beliefs.
As a teacher, I found that whenever I taught the students what I thought were the “facts” for creation, then their other teacher would just reinterpret the facts. The students would then come back to me saying, “Well sir, you need to try again.”
However, when I learned to teach my students how we interpret facts, and how interpretations are based on our presuppositions, then when the other teacher tried to reinterpret the facts, the students would challenge the teacher’s basic assumptions. Then it wasn’t the students who came back to me, but the other teacher! This teacher was upset with me because the students wouldn’t accept her interpretation of the evidence and challenged the very basis of her thinking.
What was happening was that I had learned to teach the students how to think rather than justwhat to think. What a difference that made to my class! I have been overjoyed to find, sometimes decades later, some of those students telling me how they became active, solid Christians as a result.
If one agrees to a discussion without using the Bible as some people insist, then they have set the terms of the debate…
I know that here in America we are currently in the throes of debate on Government-run health care, but I think this study on Daylight savings time should cause us to learn a lesson in all this. That lesson that should be learned is that anytime you have a government or if you have any governing bodies forcing the masses to behave in a certain way or forcing the masses to buy into a certain mindset, you can guarantee that it will be a huge waste of energy, time and effort and especially a huge waste of money. And overall, it will leave any thinking, sane person to scratch his head and say “Why are we doing this?!? This is stupid!!” Just some thoughts as we all fall back this weekend…
Daylight Saving Wastes Energy, Study Says
By JUSTIN LAHART of The Wall Street Jounal
For decades, conventional wisdom has held that daylight-saving time, which begins March 9, reduces energy use. But a unique situation in Indiana provides evidence challenging that view: Springing forward may actually waste energy.
Up until two years ago, only 15 of Indiana’s 92 counties set their clocks an hour ahead in the spring and an hour back in the fall. The rest stayed on standard time all year, in part because farmers resisted the prospect of having to work an extra hour in the morning dark. But many residents came to hate falling in and out of sync with businesses and residents in neighboring states and prevailed upon the Indiana Legislature to put the entire state on daylight-saving time beginning in the spring of 2006.
Research on the impact of extending daylight-saving time across Indiana found:
- Residential electricity usage increased between 1% and 4%, amounting to $8.6 million a year.
- Social costs from increased emissions were estimated at between $1.6 million and $5.3 million per year.
- Possible social benefits — enhanced public health and safety and economic growth — were not studied.
Indiana’s change of heart gave University of California-Santa Barbara economics professor Matthew Kotchen and Ph.D. student Laura Grant a unique way to see how the time shift affects energy use. Using more than seven million monthly meter readings from Duke Energy Corp.DUK +1.12% , covering nearly all the households in southern Indiana for three years, they were able to compare energy consumption before and after counties began observing daylight-saving time. Readings from counties that had already adopted daylight-saving time provided a control group that helped them to adjust for changes in weather from one year to the next.
Their finding: Having the entire state switch to daylight-saving time each year, rather than stay on standard time, costs Indiana households an additional $8.6 million in electricity bills. They conclude that the reduced cost of lighting in afternoons during daylight-saving time is more than offset by the higher air-conditioning costs on hot afternoons and increased heating costs on cool mornings.
“I’ve never had a paper with such a clear and unambiguous finding as this,” says Mr. Kotchen, who presented the paper at a National Bureau of Economic Research conference this month.
A 2007 study by economists Hendrik Wolff and Ryan Kellogg of the temporary extension of daylight-saving in two Australian territories for the 2000 Summer Olympics also suggested the clock change increases energy use.
That isn’t what Benjamin Franklin would have expected. In 1784, he observed what an “immense sum! that the city of Paris might save every year, by the economy of using sunshine instead of candles.” (Mr. Franklin didn’t propose setting clocks forward, instead he satirically suggested levying a tax on window shutters, ringing church bells at sunrise and, if that didn’t work, firing cannons down the street in order to rouse Parisians out of their beds earlier.)…
Recently by Donald W. Miller, Jr., MD: Iodine for Radioactive Fallout
The medical establishment and government health authorities say that consumption of saturated animal fats is bad for us and causes heart disease. According to the lipid hypothesis – the label used for the diet-cholesterol theory of heart disease – saturated fats raise serum cholesterol levels, and high blood cholesterol causes obstructive plaques to form in arteries, called atherosclerosis. This pathologic process causes coronary heart disease and the need for coronary artery bypass surgery, which is what I do.This article is taken from a talk I gave at the 29th Annual Meeting of the Doctors for Disaster Preparedness in Albuquerque last week, on the controversial subject of saturated fats [for that video CLICK HERE]. Some of the slides that I used for this talk are put in here.
Types and Structure of Fats
Animals and tropical plants contain saturated fats while plants outside the tropics have mostly unsaturated fats. Saturated animal fats are in milk, meat, eggs, butter, and cheese. And tropical coconut and palm oil contain a lot of saturated fat.
The food industry makes trans fats. They do this by shooting hydrogen atoms into polyunsaturated vegetable oils. This straightens out the fatty acid molecules and packs them closer together, giving vegetable oil so treated a solid texture like lard. Trans fats are used to make margarine, with yellow bleach added so it looks like butter. They are also used prolong the shelf life of bakery products, snack chips, imitation cheese, and other processed foods.
My friends, this is really important!! Maybe you have already heard about Dr. Ben Carlson and his amazing and courageous speech in front of President Obama at the Prayer Breakfast last Friday. This event has made many headlines. But whether you have or have not heard about this, it still bears repeating many times.
As you may know, according to my political views—well you know my political views if you have perused this blog at all—I am very partisan; I definitely feel that those that are currently in power in our nation, and their ilk, and there ideas are currently the reasons for the bulk of the problems with our nation today. But, stay with me now, Dr. Carson, WITHOUT BEING particularly PARTISAN has really spoken TRUTH at this Prayer Breakfast please see these videos below.
I know this one above is almost a half an hour. If you are pressed for time at this moment start at 17:50, but be sure to come back later. Near the beginning Dr. Carson talks very succinctly about the problems with Political Correctness. So you will have missed that if you are in a hurry and take my advice. But I really feel that the essence of his message starts at 17:50. Also just like Eric Metaxas did last year Dr. Carson appropriately mixes humor throughout his speech. (see my post about Eric Metaxas by clicking here)
This man, Dr Ben Carson has an amazing story. Cuba Gooding Jr. played Dr. Ben Carson in a movie detailing his remarkable life story, click here for that movie. Below is a picture of him receiving the Presidential Medal of Freedom from President George W. Bush in 2008. This is the highest civilian award in the United States.
Below is another must see video 🙂 which is an interview where he talks about why he felt led to give that speech at the Prayer Breakfast. My hope is that you will watch this video as well as the one above in its entirety. Also my hope is that you will feel compelled to share this post with others.
Let’s get our brains back on people…
Dr. Carson’s book AMERICA THE BEAUTIFUL: http://www.amazon.com/America-Beautiful-Rediscovering-Nation-Great/dp/0310330912/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1360280297&sr=8-1&keywords=america+the+beautiful
STORY OF HIS LIFE, GIFTED HANDS:Story of his life:http://www.amazon.com/Gifted-Hands-20th-Anniversary-Edition/dp/0310332907/ref=sr_1_sc_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1360281124&sr=8-2-spell&keywords=giftted+hands
Trailer for the Story of Dr. Ben Carson’s life:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CARsXc5XFmk
Carson Scholarship Fund: http://carsonscholars.org/