Posted on 18 August 2011
The more thorough the explanations seem, the more you need to roll your eyes and disbelieve it.
By Belmont Lay
Jonathan Eyal's special report in The Sunday Times on Aug. 14 ran the gamut of explanations for the British riots. Result? When the cause of event is unknown or non-existent, it is easy to invest political meaning into it.
Wanton destruction. Widespread looting. Deep social disease.
Yes, Britain has gone to the dogs.
Well, at least according to Jonathan Eyal, who is The Straits Times Europe Correspondent writing in The Sunday Times special report this week (pages 20 and 21).
So what exactly did he propose was the cause of all these mayhem with regards to the recent riots in Britain?
In precise order, this was pretty much what he stated: Police brutality. Poverty. Welfare state. Culture of entitlement. Single mothers. Teenage pregnancy. Absent fathers. Truancy. Illiteracy. Read the full story
Posted on 29 July 2011
New NASA data contradicts computer model’s predictions on global warming, author claims.
By Terence Lee
An alarming climate change protest. Photo: ItzaFineDay / Creative Commons
The alarming thing about the premises of global warming is that it is supposedly based on solid science and competent research. But alarmingly, much of public opinion is based on nothing but faith in science and the scientific establishment behind them, which sometimes alarms us for the wrong reasons.
Now, in an article on the Forbes blog, James M. Taylor, the senior fellow for environment policy at The Heartland Institute and managing editor of Environment & Climate News (which has been accused of being right wing), highlighted an alarming research study that seemingly casts doubt on what we assume we know. It turns out that climate scientists may have been working on flawed computer models after all.
He wrote alarmingly that “the study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.”
He goes on: “In short, the central premise of alarmist global warming theory is that carbon dioxide emissions should be directly and indirectly trapping a certain amount of heat in the earth’s atmosphere and preventing it from escaping into space. Real-world measurements, however, show far less heat is being trapped in the earth’s atmosphere than the alarmist computer models predict, and far more heat is escaping into space than the alarmist computer models predict.”
For non-science specialists like me, these articles just add to the confusion. Perhaps an unalarmed scientist would like to enlighten us on what is happening.