Global Warming=Climate Change De-Bunked
Two days ago a press release came out about an article indicating that 5,600 years ago (BP=Before the Present Age [you see, BP avoids the word “Christian”–something that is de rigeur these days]) global temperatures in Antarctica were warmer than they are today. Think about that. How old is the Chinese dynasties? What about Egypt? They lived through these times. Did THEY cause “global warming.” Well, today, there’s another press release. This one, too, is about Antarctica and tells us that in the mid-to-late Holocene (our present age)–which is around the same 5,600 years ago as mentioned above, sea ice in Antarctica was in retreat more than it is today. Their results are based on southern elephant seal occupation sites. Read More ›
Global Warming = Climate Change De-Bunked
Two days ago a press release came out about an article indicating that 5,600 years ago (BP=Before the Present Age [you see, BP avoids the word “Christian”–something that is de rigeur these days]) global temperatures in Antarctica were warmer than they are today. Think about that. How old is the Chinese dynasties? What about Egypt? They lived through these times. Did THEY cause “global warming.” Well, today, there’s another press release. This one, too, is about Antarctica and tells us that in the mid-to-late Holocene (our present age)–which is around the same 5,600 years ago as mentioned above, sea ice in Antarctica was in retreat more than it is today. Their results are based on southern elephant seal occupation sites. Read More ›
Fun: Cats sense earthquake before it occurs. But how?
Jerry Coyne on how Scientific American is departing from science
At Quanta: Mammalian neocortex is genuinely novel
Did giant viruses grow from small ones?
Theodore Dalrymple on enshrining untruth
Museum in Japan: Rocks with human-like faces
ChatGPT agrees with the Factory maker argument
Me: The odds to have even one very short gene with functional information are beyond what chance could produce, right ?ChatGTP: Yes, that is correct. The probability of even a short functional gene arising by chance is extremely low. This is due to the immense complexity and specificity of the genetic code, as well as the precise arrangement of nucleotides required for proper gene function. The odds of even a small section of DNA randomly achieving the necessary sequence to encode a functional protein are astronomically low, making it highly unlikely that the genetic code and the information it contains arose purely by chance. Me: So it is more likely, that such information is due to the action of an intelligent agent, right Read More ›