Archives for the month of: November, 2012

Isaac Asimov, “An exoheresy[A worldview] that is patently in error cannot change the universe to conform to itself. However popular it may be and however irritatingly it may survive refutation, its falseness condemns it—in the end—to nothingness.”

Good article. Good references for future reference.

Watts Up With That?

Guest post by David Middleton

I ran into this gem on Real Clear Energy this morning…

The article cites terrifying new reports commissioned by the World Bank and the CIA and then launches into a graphical cornucopia of nonsense.

The Five Charts of Doom

View original post 1,676 more words

Proud of my Senator. Thanks Anthony and Senator Inhofe.

Watts Up With That?

It has been a bit of a rough couple of days following the debut of WUWT-TV last week. At first, I couldn’t get any of the videos to play on other systems, and it was then I realized that the video streaming system saved the recorded segments in some sort of unique .mov format, requiring a conversion. Once I figured out I have to convert, it went smoother.

View original post 65 more words

I am an a-atheist. That is, I don’t believe in atheism. Atheism isn’t real. At least, irreligiousness isn’t real; it isn’t possible. It is a practiced delusion. In demographics, there may be other universals, but all people are religious. Those who claim not to be, are simply religious about irreligion or some favorite “-ism”, such as environmentalism, statism, or even scientism. Naturalism seems to me as generally accepted as religion, akin to gaia worship or simple paganism or animism. Even secularism was developed as a religious alternative to Christian orthodoxy. Scientism is probably the weirdest religion. Read the rest of this entry »

Jonathan Murray, writing for American Thinker, discusses abortion consistent with my own thinking.

He makes some points about the facts, and he points out the need to deal with the issues as a society. It should at least make you think.

For myself, I think we need to start with the facts. The only objective definition of a human we have is biological. DNA defines us from the moment of conception. By any definition from science, we are alive from conception. Once the two sets of parental DNA halves are combined, the fertilized egg will grow, develop, live, and die as a human being.

I really don’t like the notion of viability. It is not part of the argument. An argument based on some definition or other of viability can make meat of us all.

The key is due process and thoroughly thought through and reasonable definitions in the law.

Read the rest of this entry »

Watts Up With That?

Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr. has authored an excellent essay in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal that put the kibosh on the “new normal” meme seen here . As Pielke clearly shows, hurricanes like Sandy are not the “new normal” and the data tells us the USA is in a hurricane “drought.”

View original post 158 more words

%d bloggers like this: