Webs’ Random Ideas

This video moved me and I hope you enjoy it too…

I post it because the damage we do to our world is not always easy to see and not immediate. The threat of ocean life only existing in tanks is very real. And the reminder to future generations of how earlier generations didn’t care or wouldn’t change would be staring us right in the face.

If Global Warming is real and scary than what does that make Ocean Acidification?

Video found via Digital Cuttlefish…

For those of us living in the US that is… But don’t forget to check it out if you can stay up for it.

Global Warming: A Scientific and Biblical Expose of Climate Change.

I didn’t see too much noise on the Tubes for this documentary so I thought I should take the time to talk about it. Especially after catching this gem on the site:

Through on-location interviews with leading creationist scientists, climatologists, and other commentators the dangers and politics of global warming are revealed. Learn how you can be effective in caring for creation without becoming an unwitting accomplice to the myths of global warming. This balanced approach to a very “hot” topic will equip you with the information necessary to honor the Creator … without worshipping the creation.

God’s promise to Noah was that, “While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and winter and summer … shall not cease” (Genesis 8:22).

I really hope the premise of the movie is not to say, “No need to worry about what we do to this planet because god promised us it will always be here.” If that really is the message than I can say this is a dangerous movie and should really be shunned

But what should really scare individuals away is the fact this movie is made by Answers in Genesis. This is the same group that brought us the creation museum in Kentucky that tells everyone how dinosaurs roamed the Earth with humans 6,000 years ago. Anyone that tries to prove such a thing and claim it as science can’t be expected to make a scientific documentary.

Well I haven’t seen the movie and likely never will, so I think a more apt use of the rest of this post would be to discuss the idea of such films.

What boggles my mind is how people accept information from source x with no trouble at all, but make source y do cart wheels and all kinds of tricky maneuvers to be accepted. What I mean here is, if I needed knee replacement surgery I wouldn’t go talking to my Dad (who had knee replacement surgery) to find out if I really did in fact need knee replacement surgery. I would go get the advice of medical professionals and I am assuming the majority of people in the US would do the same.

If my car was having problems and I thought I might need a new engine, I would get the advice from the 2 people I talk to about car advice, but I would consult with an engines expert (specifically someone that has worked on my make/model previously) for the final decision. Just like if I wanted advice on my bicycle I would ask DOF first before talking to anyone else.

We all know who an expert is and with a reasonable degree of certainty we could weed out bad sources if we stopped to think about it. So why when it comes to politically motivated subjects or even subjects of religion are we willing to accept information from a lower quality source?

Why do we listen to TV pundits and talk show hosts about matters of science? Why don’t we spend another minute or two to get the information from a reputable source. There are plenty of scientists that study global warming and can easily point out information and data to show how global warming is real and is happening now.

But instead it seems we would rather not question our beliefs and instead confirm what we think is the case. Or maybe the truth isn’t as exciting as the conspiracy. I don’t know the reason, but I can say I think it’s a poor decision to live your life without making reasoned decisions based on evidence from reputable sources.

Going back to a previous analogy… would you get a recommendation for heart surgery from Michelle Malkin? Then why trust her for issues of science?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQNpucos9wc[/youtube]

Found via Blog Around the Clock…

The Darwin Project is St. Ambrose’s way of celebrating the 200 anniversary of Charles Darwin’s birthday. They have some lectures scheduled as well some more artistic events. It all looks pretty interesting, but I will probably stick with the lectures.

So far I have already spaced on the first lecture which looked incredibly interesting. But I plan to mark down the rest and will write about them as I partake.

Hopefully the argument of dependency on foreign oil and using alternative energies can be laid to rest.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQ30c8IZQR8[/youtube]

Not a bad idea really. Sure I would rather see a faster transistion to alternative energy, but we do not have the infrastructure to transistion over night. Nor are we currently spending enough money on research to advance technology.

But how exactly does the plan work?

The Pickens Plan is a bridge to the future — a blueprint to reduce foreign oil dependence by harnessing domestic energy alternatives, and buy us time to develop even greater new technologies.

Building new wind generation facilities and better utilizing our natural gas resources can replace more than one-third of our foreign oil imports in 10 years. But it will take leadership.

Seems like a good idea to me. Check out the site and see what you think.

I guess those two go hand in hand… anyways here is what I am talking bout:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXoZDq8qLEE[/youtube]

So there are two issues here:

1) McCain wants to drill of the coast in part to help with energy independence, in fact he seems to be claiming that this will in fact help achieve this.

2) McCain is stating that inflating tires has no effect on how much gas Americans consume, and has no marginal gain in energy independence.

1) For this statement to be true drilling off-shore would have to have an effect on US oil supply. Well according to some people that know what they are talking about the change would be marginal. It would take 7-10 years to start getting oil from off-shore, and the amount coming in would be minimal and have no real effect. It’s simply pandering.

Even if some new technology were able to make the drilling go deeper and tap into previously unknown sources, the effect is still a marginal gain in the grand scheme of things as we are importing 10,000 more barrels a day then we are exporting. It’s going to take a lot to change this.

Unfortunately off-shore drilling has disasterous environmental effects and other solutions could have a more immediate effect. Such as using more alternative energies. Who cares how wasteful people are being their energy used comes from a renewable source? It just makes sense to me.

2) As for this point, well 1 simple link will do just fine. The funny thing is, I learned about the usefullness of inflating tires 10 years ago from drivers ed. And I heard the same thing repeated from multiple car “experts” (friends or local mechanics I trusted as a source of info). Only now has it become politicized.

Both candidates are pandering on energy that one is obvious and is why we need to question them. Don’t let your candidate get off easy, write them and prod them with questions.

I got an email a few days ago, won’t say from who, but it sparked my interest.

http://econospeak.blogspot.com/2008/07/science-today-easy-way-to-lie-to-public.html

I know that you guys are in the tank for science, but I found this exchange interesting, if mainly because Brenda Rosser and Bruce Webb are well known and quality.

Think on it for a second, does science help to lie to the public as an arm of the commercial interests? Particularly with greater and greater concentration and specificity of fields. I’m not saying that all scientists fall in this category, but sufficient that certain authority can be bestowed by attaching to the coattails of responsible science.

We need a greater concentration on ethics in science.

It’s a strawman. Just because some people misuse evidence and science speaks nothing to the rest.

Think on it for a second, does science help to lie to the public as an arm of the commercial interests?

No. Science is a way of discovering and analyzing. It’s a way to look at the world and not just see the beauty but explain how it all works and fits together. Science was never meant to be used for good or evil, that’s what people choose to use it for. As stated above it’s more of a way of explaining and analyzing.

We don’t just need ethics in science but all walks of life. I can think of other areas of life where no ethics has done some terrible damage.

A new documentary by scientist Randy Olsen. Go check out the trailer.

First click here, Expelled Exposed!

Then go here to learn how to help (it’s really easy)…