Maybe Man IS To Blame For The Climate

I used to be a "climate denier". By that I mean I believed that climate change was real, but man's impact has been minimal to nonexistent. But that has changed.

Back in August of 2020, Death Valley, California posted a temperature of 130 degrees (Fahrenheit, cause, come on, if Celsius we wouldn't be here!) This was reported as the highest temperature since 1913, when it reached 134. What has happened between 1913 and 2020?

We had an industrial revolution that pumped a lot of pollution into the atmosphere.

We had reports of Global Cooling in the 1970s - the world was going into a new ice age. I know, you can't believe that - but that was what scientists reported.

We started a campaign to address the pollution. The EPA got its start. The Cuyahoga River in Cleveland stopped burning. The catalytic converter became the norm in our cars.

Then around 2000, the Rev. Al Gore (Minister of Mother Earth) started showing a slide show of the dangers of Global Warming.

And in August of 2020, Death Valley, California posted the highest temperature since 1913.

So what does this tell us? Man, by his pollution, brought the earth to the brink of an ice age, and by eliminating pollution, brought the earth to the brink of a worldwide Death Valley. 

Maybe man IS the reason for global climate change. 

The thing that scares me is that we have scientists telling us what we need to do to fix it. And each group has a remarkably different method. For instance, some want to "seed" clouds with reflective materials to bounce sunlight away. 

What if scientists are wrong? What if what they tell us swings us deeper into the embrace of Heat Miser - or, back to Snow Miser?  

I for one have little faith in what the scientific experts of 2020 tell us. After all, the experts DID tell us of the coming ice age in the 1970s. 

"But J.P., the scientists of today are much smarter than those in the 1970s. They have more data and know more of how things work."

Can you tell me that the scientists in 50 years aren't going to prove today's scientists wrong too?

Does man have an impact on the climate? I believe so. But can man fix it? I don't know. I'm more afraid that he will cause more damage in the process.

©Emittravel 2021

Because Science, Stupid!

In my last blog post I presented a simple, effective, and cost-effective solution to the (non-existent) rash of school shootings. (I say “non-existent” rash, because the number of such events have been going DOWN over the years, not increasing.) In this post I want to offer yet another option: one that is backed by science. And you know, if science says it is true, you are the worst form of human being if you disagree.

One recommendation I’ve heard lately is raising the age to permit someone to purchase a firearm (there are many terms floating around as to what that type of firearm would be, but I’m going to just call them firearms) to 21 years old. Apparently, if someone is under the age of 21 they are not “mature” enough to legally own something like that.

That is only partially correct.

Let’s see: 21 years old to purchase a firearm. 21 years old to purchase alcohol. 18 years old to purchase cigarettes (someone want to ask the Department of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms about this discrepancy?). 18 years old to vote for the most powerful position in the United States. And 16 years old to drive a two-ton vehicle at high speeds.

So what does science say? Science says that the hippo-campus, the part of the brain that makes decisions, isn’t fully formed until the age of 25. That means we allow people who are UNABLE to make decisions to drive (there are more deaths by automobile than guns) and decide who the President of the United States should be.

Does anybody else see the problem with that?

Those of us who question the validity of man-made climate change (even though the descriptor “man-made” is often dropped) are considered crackpots, conspiracy theorists, and deniers. Why? Because, according to former President Obama, the science is settled. Therefore, since science tells us that man-made climate change is real, we need to make drastic changes in the way we conduct our lives in order to comply.

But why are we okay with allowing the SETTLED science that states people are UNABLE to make good decisions before the age of 25 the ability to do any of those things I listed above, when they are clearly not capable?

Part of it is political.

I remember the whole “Rock the Vote” during the President Clinton era. Remember when he answered such tough questions on an MTV show, surrounded by teenagers, like “Boxers or briefs?” Yeah. Those are the individuals we want in voting booths.

But that is the thing: politicians do not run on facts, clearly laid out agendas, and policies. They run on emotional manipulation. You know, the area of the brain (amygdala) that is overly developed during the same below-25 period. That’s why politicians want people stupid enough to eat Tide Pods (not to be confused with Pad Thai . . . mmmmm) in the voting booth.

So, the solution is to not allow such major life decisions to individuals under the age of 25. That means no voting, drinking, purchasing firearms, and driving. This time should be used to help those individuals LEARN how to make good decisions, instead of using them to help push agendas (I’m talking to you “anti-NRA” people.)

This would be, like man-made climate change, a drastic change in the way we conduct our lives. And yes, I’m okay with this. Why? Well one: it’s science. And two: I’m over 50.

© Emittravel 2018

Does Science Support Your Opinion?

In my last post, “LGBTQLMNOP - Really?”, I spent some time questioning the obvious disconnect between those who say they are heavily entrenched in science (biological evolution, to be specific) yet claim to support those who chose to live a non-heterosexual lifestyle as normal. I did not approach the subject as a person being for or against those who chose said lifestyle. I only wanted to tackle the “hypocrisy”. I go into a lot more detail in the article, so please take time to read it if you haven’t already.

In this post I want to take the subject one step further, and ask how those who say they are heavily entrenched in science can at the same time support “gender reorientation” of children. By this I mean, how can someone say they support young Tommy wanting to be identified as, and further take steps to transition to, Tammy (or vise versa)?

(I am posting supporting links at the end of this post. The one from Mentalhealthdaily.com has supporting links for their article if you would like to research further.)

Today there are many options available for “children choosing” to change their gender, beyond simple name recognition, apparel, and which bathroom they use. One option is so-called puberty blockers, which suppress the production of estrogen and testosterone, given to children between the ages of 10 and 12. Another is providing estrogen or testosterone as a cross-sex hormone to transgender teens around 16 years old. There are health hazards with both treatments, but the idea is to allow the changes to occur while the child is still growing, versus having to resort to surgery when a person is fully grown.

In the paragraph above I put the phrase “children choosing” in quotes. Part of the reason is that legally minors require the legal permission of parents or legal guardians for medical procedures/medications. The other part leans more into the point of this post: there are children that are choosing, or are encouraged to choose, to change their gender. It is HERE where the hypocrisy lies.

According to science, a person’s brain does not reach physical maturity until the around the age of 25 years old. According to an article from Mentalhealthdaily.com, the area known as the prefrontal cortex goes through some major changes between the ages of 18 and 25. “The prefrontal cortex doesn’t have nearly the functional capacity at age 18 as it does at 25. This means that some people may have major struggles with impulsive decisions and planning behavior to reach a goal. The brain’s reward system tends to reach a high level of activation during puberty, then gradually drifts back to normal activation when a person reaches roughly the age of 25. Adults over the age of 25 tend to feel less sensitive to the influence of peer pressure and have a much easier time handling it.”

According to Nancy Guberti, a Functional Medicine Specialist, when describing the stage of development for 7 to 22 year olds,  “The neural connections or ‘grey’ matter is still pruning, wiring of brain still in progress, the fatty tissues surrounding neurons or ‘white’ matter increase and assist with speeding up electrical impulses and stabilize connections. The prefrontal cortex is the last to mature and it involves the control of impulses and decision-making.”

Did you see that? I’ll repeat: “The prefrontal cortex is the LAST (emphasis mine) to mature and it involves the control of IMPULSES and DECISION-MAKING (emphasis mine).

Here’s the disconnect: if it is scientifically known that the part of the brain that controls impulses and makes decisions is not fully formed until a person is in their mid-20s, why do we allow the decisions of a CHILD (especially of such importance) to be made that will impact the REST OF THEIR LIVES?

If a child is in elementary school and has a wonderful teacher, that child may come home and say that they want to be a teacher when they grow up. That is an admirable life goal. But would anyone think it normal/advisable/healthy to put that elementary school child in a program that will FORCE them to become a teacher when they are an adult?

When I was 17 I joined the U.S. Navy. When I did, I was determined to make a career out of it. At about six months before my time to reenlist or depart, I told the Captain of the USS Elrod (the ship I was stationed on) that I’d rather “flip hamburgers than reenlist”. When I called my parents from Italy (we were in the Mediterranean on our way home from the Persian Gulf) to let them know I was coming home, my mom flipped when she realized it was permanent. Why? She told all of our family and friends that her son was in the U.S. Navy and was making a career of it. Can you imagine being 17 years old, and signing a 20-year contract with the military? Of course not.

(By the way, I'm proud to have served in the U.S. Navy. If you are looking to join the military, take a look at Navy. It was a wonderful experience!)

So why would it seem normal to have a young child make an even more life-altering decision than that?

I often say that it is easier to count the number of college students who DON’T change their major.

Earlier I mentioned that I put “children choosing” in quotes. Let’s touch on that.

How many times is a child born a boy (or girl), when the parents really wanted a girl (or boy)? How many times is that child raised, even unintentionally, as the opposite? Ever hear of a “tomboy”?

In today’s attention-hungry culture, how many parents want the attention/publicity, even if it is through their children, because Tommy wants to use Tammy’s bathroom in school and a stink is made?

In other words, how many times is the child’s decision to change genders based on outside, rather than internal, circumstances? If a good teacher can influence a child towards a career, how much influence does a parent have?

This is too current an issue to think we have all the answers. There has not been enough time to see the outcomes of gender reorientation of children. When Tammy becomes an adult, and her prefrontal cortex has finally fully formed, what happens if she then decides that she made a terrible mistake and should have lived her life as Tommy?

(And let’s not even focus on the chances that those who go through gender reorientation can find themselves sterile adults.)

If science proves that the brain is not capable of making fully-formed decisions until the mid-20s, how can those who say they are so pro-science support the gender reorientation of children/teens?

http://mentalhealthdaily.com/2015/02/18/at-what-age-is-the-brain-fully-developed/

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/when-transgender-kids-transition-medical-risks-are-both-known-and-unknown/

http://nancyguberti.com/5-stages-of-human-brain-development/

©Emittravel 2017

LGBTQLMNOP - Really?

Over the years of writing this blog, I’ve spent my fair share of time being critical of Christianity. As a Christian, this type of introspection is usually kept for those closest in relationship, or just in the quiet of prayer. It is usually not voiced out into the air for those not of the same belief structure to hear. After all, Christians want non-Christians to become Christians. It’s part of the credo. Anything that even remotely smells like hypocrisy is supposed to be hidden or ignored.

What I want to know is how do those on the opposite end of the belief spectrum deal with apparent hypocrisy. What am I talking about? Let me explain.

Recently President Trump repealed the Obama administration’s school bathroom mandate, and that caused quite a stir on social media. Many people who claim to care for transgender folks were either blasting the “hatred” of President Trump and his administration, or pouring out words of overwhelming support for those affected by this mandate. Most of these folks do not claim to be Christians. Because, you know, Christians are hateful, narrow minded anti-truthers (a.k.a. “anti-science”).

As far as whether or not a person is non-heterosexual (by the way, it is just easier to use “non-heterosexual” than to have to remember ALL of the other terms used for those who claim to not be heterosexual), I really don’t care one way or the other. I will neither praise you for your “bravery”, nor condemn you for being a “bane” upon society. So I’m not coming at this with bias for or against. I am coming at this rather confused.

What I’m finding is that the same people who are so pro-non-heterosexual lifestyles, are the same people who claim to be very pro-science. Remember the age old war of religion versus science? Should a Christian school be forced to teach evolution? Should a non-religious school be forced to teach creationism? You know, evolution is the truth because it is supposed to be based in science, whereas creationism (and the idea of a God) is mythological whimsy.

What I want to know is, how do those who fully believe that evolution (and science) is truth can embrace non-heterosexual lifestyles?

Recently, Tucker Carlson had an interview with DNC advisor Zac Petkanas, where he asked if gender identity was really all someone needs to determine gender? In other words, what a person SAYS they are, they are. This is a common viewpoint: if Tommy says he is really Tammy, than to say Tommy isn’t is discriminatory. Tommy’s personal viewpoint of Tommy’s gender is all that really matters. Tucker Carlson argued that SCIENCE (biology), and not psychology should determine gender. According to science humans reproduce sexually with two genders: male and female.

How does someone who is a Darwinist, believing in biological evolution and disregarding anything that does not fit that viewpoint (creationism), accept that gender identity trumps science?

If you believe in evolution, you HAVE to accept the survival of the species premise. Non-heterosexuals do NOT fit in that premise.

If you took heterosexuals and isolated them on an island, they would reproduce and the species would survive. If you took non-heterosexuals and isolated them on an island (an island of homosexual men or an island of homosexual women), what would happen? And if you answer that honestly and scientifically, you HAVE to come to the realization that non-heterosexual lifestyles are NOT in line with evolution.

Non-heterosexuality does NOT benefit society, as it does not follow the basic, biological premise of evolution.

So, I ask those of you who claim that science is the ultimate truth, how do you reconcile this?

I’m not hating. I’m questioning. I’d really like to know.

©Emittravel 2017

The Science is Settled

No, the title of this blog is not intended as "click bait". In January of 2014, our own President Obama declared that the debate over climate change was settled: "Climate change is a fact."

The purpose of this particular post is not to argue for or against man-made climate change. I've done that before. What I'm hoping to convey is how important mankind may or may not be, and the impact - or lack thereof - mankind has upon the world around him.

(I follow the old-school grammar of using "he" and "him" when referencing humankind in general. I don't mean to come off as sexist. Women fit in the generalizations I will be addressing just as much.)

I was reading an article recently that was discussing man-made earthquakes. What? Really? Yes. Really. The article referenced such things as the Hoover Dam (the water pressure), years of oil and natural gas extraction, and the recent hot topic of fracking, as being influential if not directly the cause of earthquakes. Various studies have taken place over decades, with mounds and mounds of data collected concerning seismic activity. And you know what? With all of the data, with all of the experts, the decision was made: Actually, there has been no decision. There are those on both sides using the same data to make their argument. The science is NOT settled.

Of course, with climate change, with much more data from many more sources, the science is settled. At least that is what Climatologist Barack Obama said. And he's not alone. In the recent Paris Climate Summit, a bunch of climatologists (a.k.a. "politicians") got together and said that man-made climate change was settled science, and made an agreement that hopes to aggressively curb the hotbed that the earth has become (sarcasm font).

What do earthquakes and climate have in common? Man's impact - or lack thereof.

On one hand Friedrich Nietzsche stated that "God is Dead". On the other Shirley MacLaine stated that "I am God." Right there is the rub: we want a world without God, so we can sit on the throne AS God. But is that possible?

My fear is not necessarily that we create earthquakes or climate change by our actions. My fear is that our actions to fix things cause more harm because unlike God, our vision is very short-sighted and we miss the long-term impact of the things we do.

I could talk about windmills and their impact upon birds, or solar panels and the amount of reflected light/heat that may be warming the atmosphere, but I'm not. I'm going to give you a little story from my home state of Ohio:

We have a lot of deer here. A lot. I've heard that it is because of all the housing and business development that the deer have been driven from their areas and now are all over the place. That may have something to do with it, but not entirely. The other reason for the deer population growth is deer population growth. For example: for two years in a row we had two fawns in either our yard or our next-door neighbor's yard. Below are pictures of three of them:

That's four additional deer in two years. My neighbor, who (along with one of his kids) is a hunter, has bagged around one a year. That means there are two more deer running around here than originally (not including the parents still running around). I know there are other hunters, but with the limits on where you can hunt (my neighborhood is off-limits, and the deer apparently KNOW that!) and the number you can actually kill, the population is exploding.

So what did the wise leaders in Ohio do? They changed the hunting laws? Nope! Not humane enough. They brought in a natural predator: coyotes.

Let's see how well that worked out.

The coyotes have NO natural predator in Ohio thinning them out. So, we are now overrun with coyotes (see my blog). But at least the deer have been thinned out, right? Nope! The coyotes would rather go after cats and small dogs than after big deer that run too fast. So now we have both: deer AND coyotes.

When it comes to man-made climate change, the thing that scares me more than the loss of oceanfront property is the damage that man MAY do by trying to fix it.

Well, at least one thing removes my fear: the science is settled.

© Emittravel 2015

If the Stiletto Fits . . .

A few weeks prior to this writing, Bruce Jenner "came out" publicly as Caitlyn Jenner.

First off, I think it interesting that we still use the expression "came out", as it is directly reminiscent of when those outside the socially-accepted "norm" were IN the so-called closet, and, when going public with the truth concerning themselves, would come OUT of said closet.

Secondly, I think it interesting that the term "closet" is used to describe both the place for those outside of the socially-accepted "norm", AND as the place Christians are encouraged to enter when praying (Matthew 6:6 - KJV). Curious. Ever think that for some people, the very "closet" one spends time in prayer becomes the very place they discover their true selves?

(Yeah, that last thing may upset a few folks . . . )

As I mentioned in my last blog post, one of the difficulties I have with the Christian church is the focus on the depravity of the world, and how those in the church have "overcome" and are separate from, even superior to, it. I was part of that belief structure for many years, and I know how entrenched that attitude can be in one's life. And it is sometimes given from the pulpit with sly humor, all the while reinforcing an intolerance for the very people the church is supposed to be reaching out to.

If you, as a person with such an attitude, find that you have difficulty with folks like Caitlyn Jenner, I want to know something: Is God the author of birth defects?

Think about that for a minute. And no, I'm not calling Caitlyn Jenner someone with a birth defect. Though, in a sense, maybe I am.

We Christians like to say that God doesn't make junk. For example, using the (re)creation account in Genesis chapter one, everything God made was "good". The bible also says that sickness and disease are from the Devil. So, where do birth defects come from? I've already argued that children aren't born with them because of their sins or the sins of their parents (see "Hey Babe: Take a Walk on the Quiet Side"), so where do they come from?

(One way I understand it is, the longer we have been here, reproducing and reproducing, errors in our genetic make-up keep getting passed down, and even transfigured, from one generation to the next. I was born, for instance, without a sense of smell. For me each breath is the same. My mom's sense of smell is normal. My dad's is beyond normal: he's smelled an underground gas leak that the technician couldn't detect with his meter until he had dug two-feet below ground! Yet, MY shnoz is basically useless. With sinus issues, it is sometimes beyond useless! Radiation is known to be a source of some cancers, because of the way it affects cells. I believe that in some cases, cancer can be a genetic disorder.)

Now, if someone is born with a birth defect, and science has come to the point where they can "fix" it, should the person with the defect take advantage of that technology? Or, since God made them that way, should they embrace the way they are and not seek "wholeness"? If one is born without arms or legs, prosthetics today have come a long way to providing someone a higher level of independence than they would have ever experienced otherwise. Would it be wrong to embrace such technology? What about corrective lenses (glasses or contacts), or even LASIC surgery? Would those be abominations because they go to "fix" what God had deemed "good"? Of course not.

Okay, let's not limit birth defects. Since sex is only determined by a couple of X's and Y's (and no, I'm not getting into the whole sex vs. gender argument), what if what one is born with is NOT what they, inside, determine themselves to be? Isn't that a form of birth defect too? And since science has come to the point where they can "fix" that as well, is it wrong for a person to embrace that either?

You have to think, if all wisdom and inventiveness ultimately comes from God, is it so wrong for medical technology to give people a way to live a more "normal" life?

As the title says, "If the stiletto fits . . . "

© Emittravel 2015

The "C" Word is the new "F" Word

I was watching a YouTube video of a science series that I enjoy. The female host does a wonderful job of explaining current happenings with intelligence and flair. And as an added bonus, she has an accent (I know, we all have accents, but hers isn't mine), which makes listening even that much more enjoyable.

On this particular episode, she was reading some of the YouTube "hate mail" she has received. Why? To show us, her audience, what kind of morons are out there. Very little of what she read dealt with the content of her videos. There were a few, but no one provided any form of opposing viewpoint: just vitriol. The comments were of a very hateful and personal nature.

What surprised me the most was NOT the flagrant use of the "F" word (you know the one: rhymes with "truck"). Nor was it the use of the "C" word (that one rhymes with "hunt"). It was that the "C" word was "bleeped", whereas the "F" word (and about every other known swear word) was used outright. (I'm reminded of a comment by the comedian Lewis Black: "You might think I use the word f*** a lot. Well, I don't give a s***. I'm from New York, and in New York "f***" is not a swear word; it's a comma!")

Which brings me to the point: the "C" word has become the new "F" word. Maybe we as a society have become so desensitized to the "F" word that we no longer find it offensive. My question is, why are any words still considered offensive? In a society of openness and acceptance (okay, maybe not across the board, but it's getting closer), should anything anyone says be considered offensive? Doesn't it fall more upon the hearers than the speakers? And if so, doesn't that say something about the attitudes of the hearers?

I could get all sensitive at this point and cry out against the fall of culture, but frankly, I really don't give a f***.

© Emittravel 2014

Ashamed to Be a Christian

I've come to the point in my life where I have to declare that I'm ashamed to be a Christian.

I was listening to a podcast where a well-known astrophysicist was talking about Copernicus, and how he had moved the sun into the center of the universe, and how this was heresy, because the Bible declares that the earth is the center of the universe. Now, he wasn't considering Copernicus' viewpoint as heresy, the Church was. Since this astrophysicist is well known, a lot of people who listen to him will go away with the same viewpoint: the Bible is an archaic book that is scientifically flawed, and Christians who claim the Bible to be without error are flawed as well.

I've read the Bible through a number of times. I've read the King James Version (more times than I can remember), The Living Bible, The New King James Version, Youngs Literal Translation, the Douay-Rheims Version, the Modern King James Version, the Revised Standard Version, the Weymouth New Testament, the Voice in the Wilderness Bible, the Amplified Bible, and am currently reading the Darby translation. I've been a devout Catholic, been in the Charismatic movement, the Word and Faith movement, and the Prosperity movement. All that and I've come to the realization that I'm ashamed to be a Christian. Am I ashamed of Jesus the Christ? No! I'm ashamed of Christians.

Christians have done more to push the world away from Jesus than anything the world can come up with on its own. Christians have taken the Bible to be this inerrant book that has ALL of the answers to life within its pages, and have trumpeted it to the world. Really? All you need to do is watch the recent "debate" between Bill Nye (the Science Guy) and Ken Ham (young-earth Creationist), and to read about current "trends" in Christianity (like "Grave Sucking"), to find yourself trying to remove the fish from the back of your car.

I will go into a lot more detail in an upcoming post called "Science is the Answer. What's Your Question?", but to touch on at least one point:

The Bible is best viewed from the 5,000 foot level. When looked at from this vantage point, you see what the overarching topic of the Bible is: God's relationship to Man, and Man's relationship to God. The problems come when we find ourselves dissecting every verse and creating doctrines out of them.

Let's take the "creation" account in Genesis. Again, I will go into much greater detail in "Science is the Answer … ". Do you really think God was trying to get across a detailed description of how everything started so we would understand the intricacies of the universe? Go up to the 5,000 foot level. From that vantage point you see that the "creation" account is to give Man a starting point to the relationship - a rough synopsis, if you will.

Look at this example: "Then God said, 'Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth'; and it was so. Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also.' - Genesis 1:14-17 (NKJV) Let me ask you: what was the greater and lesser lights? Think about it. Take your time. I'll wait. I've been taught that the greater light was the sun (to light the day) and that the lesser light was the moon (to light the night) - and the stars are referenced separately.  Think about this: The sun is the greater light for the day. The sun actually PRODUCES light. The moon is the lesser light for the night. The moon DOES NOT PRODUCE light - it only REFLECTS that from the sun. And besides that, when the moon is in the New Moon phase, there is NO light reflected - there is NO light for the night. So, either God was wrong, or the Bible was not trying to lay down scientific explanations.

The passage above does reference time and seasons, but no details are given. Why? "It is the glory of God to conceal a matter,  But the glory of kings is to search out a matter." Proverbs 25:2 (NKJV) God WANTS us to explore and understand. He gave us the very intellects, and hunger to know, to search out His creation. The Bible says that all creation shows forth the glory of God. That is ALL creation: from the micro to the macro. God does not give details concerning the speed of light, neutrinos, the atom, or the cell in the Bible. He DID give us the tools (brains) to seek those things out. Like a parent watching their child open a gift at Christmas, the joy for the parent is not the gift, but it is in the discovery FOR their child.

The Bible is NOT a scientific treatise with detailed information on the universe. It is a relational book first and foremost. If you parse it too much, guarantee you will find yourself in grave-sucking error!

I've heard it said that you should always look at scripture in the context in which it was written. Again, look at the scripture from the 5,000 foot view and see if it lines up with the overarching story. If it doesn't, you may not be lined up with what God is trying to tell us.

So, please, if you are a Christian, STOP giving the world excuses. I, for one, do not want to be the reason someone does not get to know Him.

© Emittravel 2014

The Times, They Ain't a Changin'

Recently, Popular Science shut down the ability to make comments on its website.

You'll notice that there are no comments on that article … uh … yeah … Actually, when I first looked at the article it showed "Comments" with a count of "zero". Now the article has links to Twitter, Facebook, etc. In other words, Popular Science welcomes comments, just not on their site.

This has been a topic of online conversation, blogs, and news, and rightfully so. The main argument I've seen was concerning whether or not this was censorship. Well, for one, it IS a private entity and has the right. It's not a publically-funded entity, where that would be an issue. Being able to make comments on a site is not a "right", but an option provided by the website to stimulate conversation. But unfortunately, spammers, trolls, and people being plain rude have ruined comments. No longer a means of discourse; just a way to be coarse.

As usual, I'm going to look at this from a different angle. One that looks at part of the article (linked above) that has been brushed aside.

PopSci (I LOVE that shortened name, by the way) believes that things like the origins of climate change are apparently without opposing scientific proof. Comments that shed any doubt on the "popular consensus" are detrimental and need to be shut down.

Let me remind you: Whenever you remove dissension to scientific findings, you have removed the validity of those scientific findings.

Take a moment and read that again. Let it sink in. Really. I'll wait.

History has proven that there is no such thing as empirical scientific absolutes. Let me give you an example. For about a century, scientists were convinced that light was a wave. In 1905, Albert Einstein challenged that conviction in that light was not only a wave, but also a particle. Now, according to the majority, Albert Einstein was wrong. Two decades later the dual concept of light was finally accepted. It took two whole decades for the MAJORITY of scientific EXPERTS to admit that they COULD be wrong.

It is this same hutzpah today that plagues the scientific community. Without such men as Albert Einstein challenging the status quo, we would not have the scientific breakthroughs of our day today. I know, "but that was Albert Einstein". In 1905, Albert Einstein was a patent clerk with a passion for physics, not the Nobel Prize-winning man we came to admire much later.

Again, history has proven that there is no such thing as empirical scientific absolutes.

Scientists today suffer the same malady that those in Albert Einstein's day suffered: unmitigated arrogance. They fully believed that those before them were genuine, sincere, but seriously misguided in their understanding of (name the subject), and that they themselves were far superior in their intellectual comprehension of (that same subject).

Until those, and their supporters, understand that those in our future will also consider US borderline Neanderthals in OUR expertise, the true ability for scientific expansion will be arrested. And Popular Science has willingly supplied the handcuffs.

© Emittravel 2013

Stuff My Brain Says #68

I think it is hysterical that man, in all of his evolved genius, cannot create a computer equal to a human brain - which, by evolutionist/naturalist terms, is nothing more than a chance combination of arbitrary chemical reactions. Maybe someday he will, but I wonder how - with a brain that is essentially nothing but an accident. Possibly BY accident?

© Emittravel 2013