I've been telling people that it is only a matter of time before the environmental community woke up and realized that H2O is the #1 greenhouse gas.
NewScientist: Water vapour worse climate change villain than thought
ScienceDaily.com: Frequent Family Meals Might Reduce Teen Substance Use
ScienceDaily.com: Older People May Need Less Sleep, Study Finds
I love when lefties get their undies in a bundle over things that Republicans do but I get really pissed off when they try to distort and spread lies about what we do.
Jay Bullock over at folkbum’s rambles and rants posted this today: The continuing Republican war on science
What really galls me is that these supposed “intellectuals” like Jay on the left seem to think that they are science minded…you know guys that believe Algore over scientific research…people that believe consensus is somehow related to science…that think “peer-reviewed” research adds any credit to an argument (see: cold fusion).
When in reality they are just ticked that Republicans believe that true scientific advancement should not be done within the realm of government. We should not allow political discourse to enter into a field that is meant to be driven by facts not emotions. But the left can’t seem to imagine science without government…I’m not surprised!
Here are a few things to note about the “Republican War on Science”:
While the Right does not wish to have government funding of embryonic stem cell research…the Left will not allow life saving research to be conducted on animals – even if independently funded.
While the Right reviews scientific research that shows anthropogenic global warming to be nothing but “hot-air” and has encouraged more debate rather than jumping to any one conclusion…the Left is moving swiftly (and blindly) to raising taxes around the world with new “carbon credits,” completely ignoring the swift decline in global temperatures.
FYI: The RNC will be utilizing the SMM during the convention and is open to the guests at the convention during this time. Press Release: SCIENCE MUSEUM OF MINNESOTA TO OPEN EXCLUSIVELY FOR 2008 REPUBLICAN NATIONAL CONVENTION EVENTS
Who would have guessed this!??!
AFP: Higher CO2 levels may be good for plants: German scientists
I’m trying to figure out why it took a group of German scientists 9 years to tell us something that any 3rd grader in life science could have told us…plants love CO2!!
You read that correctly it seems that research done at the University of California has concluded that the decision to participate in the electoral process is partially genetic in nature!!
Science Daily: Political Participation Is Partially Rooted In Genetic Inheritance
“These findings are extremely important for how we think about political behavior,” said Fowler. For example, it is widely known that parents and children exhibit similar voting behavior, but this has always been interpreted as learned behavior rather than inherited behavior.
According to Fowler, “We are not robots – the genes just seem to make it more likely that some of us will respond to our social lives by getting involved in politics.” Fowler also cautioned that there is no such thing as a ‘voter gene’: “That idea is just silly. Complex social behaviors are the result of hundreds of genes interacting with hundreds of social factors – these results are really just the tip of the iceberg.” (emphasis added by gopfolk)
Image: Science
The flash of light that captured this amazing picture was only 80 attoseconds long…or about 0.000000000000000001 seconds long!!!
Bisphenol A (BPA or 4,4'-dihydroxy-2,2-diphenylpropane) has also been known to cause the following in mice at low exposure (wiki):
- Decreased maternal behaviors
- Insulin resistance develops in 2 days, chronic hyperinsulinemia at day 4
Prostate cells more sensitive to hormones and cancer - Breast cells predisposed to cancer
- Decline in testicular testosterone
- Lower bodyweight, increase of anogenital distance in both genders, signs of early puberty and longer estrus.
- Increased prostate weight 30%
- Changes in breast tissue that predispose cells to hormones and carcinogens
- Permanent changes to genital tract
All I can say is WOW!!! This does not sound very good to me but it is good to note: DO NOT use polycarbonate for your hot liquids – BPA will leach out of the plastic and into your liquid!
Hydrazine is the rocket fuel that was still in the satellite the US Navy destroyed on Wednesday night.
But the question still remains: was the destruction of the satellite really due to this fuel or was it to:
a) show that we could do something the Chinese recently did?
OR
b) destroy a satellite that contained classified information and/or technology that we did not want a foreign country to get a hold of?
Just some food for thought.
This has been in the news quite a bit lately. Can you tell me what it is any why it has been in the news?
Image 1:
Image 2:
The UK is actively perusing the capabilities! See picture here!
See the DailyMail story here.
Think I’m joking read the story here.
Here is the butterfly and the link to the bid page:
Just for kicks what would you name this butterfly?
From The Washington Times Editorial:
The hottest year: 1934?
It was never supposed to be a trick question. Which year is the hottest on record?Depending where one looks, there are three different answers: 2006, 1998 or 1934. Until last week, the answer was supposed to be 2006, but it might have been 1998. Now, citing corrections of faulty data, NASA says it was actually 1934. The National Climactic Data Center disagrees; it still says 1998.
The differences are a matter of tenths of a degree Celsius, which might seem to diminish the significance of the corrections. Except that unusually warm years in the 1920s, 1930s and 1950s are themselves only a few tenths of a degree Celsius away from the purportedly dangerous hot temperatures of the present. Only one thing is certain: The political debate over global warming has rushed far ahead of the science.
Here's what we know: The National Climatic Data Center reported in mid-January that 2006 was the hottest year on record. Then, in May, it revised the numbers, concluding that 1998, in fact, was the hottest on record. NASA's old numbers echoed that last contention. But last week, it emerged that NASA had quietly restated its numbers, without fanfare or so much as a press release, after a blogger pointed out faulty methodology. Now, per NASA: 1934 is hottest, followed by 1998, 1921, 2006 and 1931.
The media coverage amid this confusion has been execrable. Last week's Newsweek purports to take readers inside the world of "Global-Warming Deniers: A Well-Funded Machine" without mentioning that the global-warming alarmists are even better funded, in some cases with government support. Naturally, Newsweek is not very interested in the recent data restatement.
Here's another hysteric, The Washington Post, in January: "Last year was the warmest in the continental United States in the past 112 years," read its front-page story, "capping a nine-year warming streak 'unprecedented in the historical record' that was driven in part by the burning of fossil fuels, the government reported yesterday." Funny, but we thought "unprecedented" would require an absence of, well, precedents, such as the 1920s and 1930s. These years were similarly warm decades, like the present.
Alas, when the source of data that prompted this story, the National Climatic Data Center, adjusted its numbers in May, The Post did not correct its shrieking January story. Nor has The Post yet bothered to report NASA's latest data restatement. Instead, on Friday, we get: "Did Global Warming Cause NYC Tornado?"
If we cannot get through 2007 without a data restatement so fundamental that it dethrones the "hottest year on record," we should not keep hearing angry intonations that "The debate is over." The debate is not over — not if such basic climate data is so disputed.
Just when we were beginning to think that space was going to be the new frontier.
8/2/07 
CBC: Russia plants flag staking claim to Arctic Region
8/9/07
BBC: Canada PM asserts Arctic claims
8/10/07
AP: Denmark maps Arctic Region in claims race
I wonder where the US is in all this mess. Where is our claim to the Arctic? Are we going to allow all these other countries quibble over the region and not get our share? Is this just a shameful ploy by the Russians to create an issue where none exists?
And in case you miss the old space race…China is coming on strong. They first launched a man into space in late 2005 and are setting sites on their first space walk in 2008. Today China has a new claim…
Reuters: China to map "every inch" of moon surface: report
