As per Moonbattery, here, from the Wallstreet Journal, the Gorical made an amazing statement - that “our very way of life” is in danger if we don’t end the “carbon age” within the next 10 years. Now think about that one. CO2 is a byproduct of rotting vegetation; and it is not the precursor to warming, it FOLLOWS warming. In addition to the simple fact that all mammals exhale CO2, and plants eat it up - there is a beautiful symbiotic relationship in the environment between animal living things and vegetable living things; for plants, CO2 makes them grow, and it’s used in agriculture to increase crop yields.

Yet, the Supreme Court ruled that greenhouse gases - like water vapor - air ‘air pollutants’ and can be regulated. And so the EPA has decided it wants to leverage that.

In a huge document released last Friday, the EPA lays out the thousands of carbon controls with which they’d like to shackle the whole economy. Central planning is too artful a term for the EPA’s nanomanagement.

Egad. Read the rest at the Wall Street Journal.

The intolerance of Big Science in academia shows the Darwin paradigm as a secular religion. No intelligence allowed!

Ben Stein’s film is about the evolutionists and their thought police tactics regarding the antiquated theory of evolution.

Dinesh D’Souza wrote a piece about it at Townhall.com entitled “Ben Stein Exposes Richard Dawkins”:

In Ben Stein’s new film “Expelled,” there is a great scene where Richard Dawkins is going on about how evolution explains everything. This is part of Dawkins’ grand claim, which echoes through several of his books, that evolution by itself has refuted the argument from design. The argument from design hold that the design of the universe and of life are most likely the product of an intelligent designer. Dawkins thinks that Darwin has disproven this argument.

So Stein puts to Dawkins a simple question, “How did life begin?” One would think that this is a question that could be easily answered. Dawkins, however, frankly admits that he has no idea.

Read the entire article. The complexities of life and how we came into existence-simply cannot be explained by that out dated Victorian “theory” that is being taught in our schools without any other alternative.

What is even more entertaining beyond the infinitesimal impossibility of this all coming together ‘by chance’ - is the fact that Dawkins then proposes the “ET Theory”; that life evolved, but was set into motion by intelligent beings from outer space.

So now that Dawkins has admitted that evolution provides no explanation for the origins of life, and we are left with the notion that it has to be either ET or God.

It isn’t as big a leap of faith to believe in God as the creator of all things when you put it into that context.

Chuck Norris has a piece up on Worldnet Daily about this entitled “Win Ben Stein’s Monkey”

What’s surprising to me is that this debate is framed by atheists (who have their own religion that they’re trying to push on everyone else) in terms that are incredibly odd–that it’s science against religion. Where Evolution is consider science (when there is no hard evidence that supports it) - and Intelligent Design is considered “religion”. ID is by no means a religious concept…it only supports the notion that it’s highly unlikely that-in the words of Ben Stein-when lightening strikes a muddle puddle, what emerges from that is a fully equipped 747.

Glen Beck’s book looks like it’s worth checking into, too.

In the WSJ yesterday, they point to where that overinflated 650,000 number of dead Iraqis that the anti-war people cite came from.

British medical journal Lancet published a bombshell report estimating that casualties in Iraq had exceeded 650,000 since the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003. We know that number was wildly exaggerated. The news is that now we know why.

It turns out the Lancet study was funded by anti-Bush partisans and conducted by antiwar activists posing as objective researchers. It also turns out the timing was no accident. You can find the fascinating details in the current issue of National Journal magazine, thanks to reporters Neil Munro and Carl Cannon.

With the original data unavailable, a resistance to revealing their methodology, a key test of scientific rigor would be for others to verify the findings. It’s the scientific method! But apparently, just as in the case of global warming, this was a one-shot deal, in order to manage a political outcome from hysterical numbers that have no basis in fact.

…the authors have declined to provide the surveyors’ reports and forms that might bolster confidence in their findings. Customary scientific practice holds that an experiment must be transparent — and repeatable — to win credence. Submitting to that scientific method, the authors would make the unvarnished data available for inspection by other researchers. Because they did not do this, citing concerns about the security of the questioners and respondents, critics have raised the most basic question about this research: Was it verifiably undertaken as described in the two Lancet articles?

“The authors refuse to provide anyone with the underlying data,” said David Kane, a statistician and a fellow at the Institute for Quantitative Social Statistics at Harvard University. Some critics have wondered whether the Iraqi researchers engaged in a practice known as “curb-stoning,” sitting on a curb and filling out the forms to reach a desired result. Another possibility is that the teams went primarily into neighborhoods controlled by anti-American militias and were steered to homes that would provide information about the “crimes” committed by the Americans.

Fritz Scheuren, vice president for statistics at the National Opinion Research Center and a past president of the American Statistical Association, said, “They failed to do any of the [routine] things to prevent fabrication.” The weakest part of the Lancet surveys is their reliance on an unsupervised Iraqi survey team, contended Scheuren, who has recently trained survey workers in Iraq.

This stinks out loud, but we’re aware of today’s Lysenko-style “science”…it doesn’t follow the ’scientific method’ at all.

Source

Gateway Pundit posted on this on January 4, quoting Ayatollah Al-Sistani:

“Be as a great mountain – he added – immovable before the attempts of some media to attack our unity, exaggerating the number of the victims and speaking of confessional war”.

Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani
Asia News
September 26, 2007

Glenn Reynolds

Rick Moran

Charles Johnson

Newsbusters

This is interesting, passed on to me by Rotty through email, since he knows I always enjoy a good row.

The standoff begins with the Devil’s Kitchen, pointing to a post by Tom Nelson at Climate Resistance who took on the quest for the holy grail; the qualifications of the IPCC “climate experts” whose “science” we aren’t allowed to question. This, because the “debate is over” and the “science is settled”, despite the 400 dissenters that showed up in Bali. The truth of the matter is, The Church of Global Warming doesn’t want to hear any other opinions, which is not science. Science is supposed to be open to honest testing of a hypothesis. The only why you get a real answer is if you’re open to finding out what the truth is. This isn’t the case in terms of the global warming freaks.

So we downloaded IPCC WGII’s latest report on “Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability”. There were 380 contributors to the report [PDF of contributors].

*snip*

..so we focused on the contributors who operate in the UK. Of the 51 UK contributors to the report, there were 5 economists, 3 epidemiologists, 5 who were either zoologists, entomologists, or biologists. 5 worked in civil engineering or risk management / insurance. 7 had specialisms in physical geography (we gave the benefit of the doubt to some academics whose profiles weren’t clear about whether they are physical or human geographers). And just 10 have specialisms in geophysics, climate science or modelling, or hydrology. But there were 15 who could only be described as social scientists. If we take the view that economics is a social science, that makes 20 social scientists. This gives the lie to Dessler’s claim that IPCC contributors are analogous to medical doctors.

Emphasis mine. HA! Just as in the case of Rachel Carson, the marine biologist, we’re supposed to ignore the real data for the purpose of kneeling at the environmental alter and sacrifice blood and treasure on the basis of lies. This also gives the lie to “climatologists’” claims in general about warming, that we’re not supposed to question the holy writ that comes from the IPCC panel, because they’re the ‘experts’.

We were surprised by the results. Was the prevalence of social scientists from the UK representative of the whole group? We decided to repeat the test for the contributors based in the USA.

Of the 70 US contributors, there were 7 economists, 13 social scientists, 3 epidemiologists, 10 biologists/ecologists, 5 engineers, 2 modellers/statisticians, 1 full-time activist (and 1 part time), 5 were in public health and policy, and 4 were unknowns. 17 worked in earth/atmospheric sciences. Again, we gave the benefit of the doubt to geographers where it wasn’t clear whether their specialism was physical, or human geography.

1 full-time activist and 1 part-time! This blows my mind and is an outrage! I’m certain that the same results would be achieved by going down the entire list, no matter where they’re originally from. This is propaganda masquerading as science!

In a follow-up post, Dessler has set about ‘Busting the ‘consensus busters” by ridiculing the qualifications of Inhofe’s 400 experts, starting with a certain Thomas Ring. In the comments section he justifies this approach:

I agree it would be quicker to simply note the qualified skeptics on the list (there are probably a few dozen), but, from a rhetorical point of view, I think pointing out these immensely unqualified members of the list is more effective.

Ring’s credentials include a degree from Case Western Reserve University in chemical engineering, still more impressive than the ones the IPCC panel has trotted out. This is even MORE amusing:

Well, we can all play that game… Included as contributors to WGII are Patricia Craig, Judith Cranage, Susan Mann, and Christopher Pfeiffer, all from Pennsylvania State University. It’s not that these people aren’t experts in their field - they probably are. Our problem with their inclusion on the list of Contributors to the IPCC WGII Fourth Assessment report is that their jobs are (in order) website-designer, administrative assistant (x2), and network administrator.

YIKES!

Also on the list is Peter Neofotis who appears to be a 2003 graduate of Ecology, Evolution, and Environmental Biology from Columbia. Are there many experts in anything who graduated in 2003? Would Dessler take his sick child to a doctor, who, according to our understanding of medical training, would have not yet qualified? Also at Columbia is Marta Vicarelli, who is a PhD candidate in ’sustainable development’. Can she be the amongst the world’s leading experts on sustainability? It seems hard to take the claim seriously. Or what about Gianna Palmer at Wesleyan University, who, as far as we can tell, will not graduate from university until 2010?

Dessler has inadvertently thrown a light on what the real problem is with the agenda-driven IPCC ‘climate’ reports.

And yet Dessler insists that

Inhofe’s list is chock full of people without any recent, relevant research on the problem. In fact, I’m pretty sure that’s why they’re skeptics: people with the relevant experience are immediately persuaded by the evidence. This should be compared to the IPCC, which includes exclusively people with recent, relevant expertise on the problem.

There are, in fact, only about 7,000 climatologists in total, because climate was a stalled profession involving many different disciplines, and climate was considered to be something in constant flux. But still, those that are in Inhofe’s list are at least engineers, instead of administrative assistants, activists, web designers and students who aren’t destined to graduate until 2010, and so on.

Anything which can be thrown at the sceptics can be thrown at IPCC contributors.

That is not to say that social scientists and computer programmers have nothing to offer the world, or the IPCC process. They are crucial in fact. What it is to say, however, is that, when social scientists, computer programmers and administrative assistants comprise a significant proportion of IPCC contributors, the global warmer mantra that the IPCC represents the world’s top 2500 climate scientists is just plain old-fashioned not true.

It’s just a plain old-fashioned LIE, but it’s typical of the pipedreams of leftist environmentalists. Inhofe’s list is comprised of these notable characters:

Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

Dr. Tad Murty, former senior research scientist, Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans, former director of Australia’s National Tidal Facility and professor of earth sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide; currently adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

Dr. R. Timothy Patterson, professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University, Ottawa

Dr. Fred Michel, director, Institute of Environmental Science and associate professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Carleton University, Ottawa

Dr. Madhav Khandekar, former research scientist, Environment Canada. Member of editorial board of Climate Research and Natural Hazards

Dr. Paul Copper, FRSC, professor emeritus, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ont.

Dr. Ross McKitrick, associate professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph, Ont.

Dr. Tim Ball, former professor of climatology, University of Winnipeg; environmental consultant

Dr. Andreas Prokoph, adjunct professor of earth sciences, University of Ottawa; consultant in statistics and geology

Mr. David Nowell, M.Sc. (Meteorology), fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, Canadian member and past chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa

Dr. Christopher Essex, professor of applied mathematics and associate director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.

Dr. Gordon E. Swaters, professor of applied mathematics, Dept. of Mathematical Sciences, and member, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Research Group, University of Alberta

Dr. L. Graham Smith, associate professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.

Dr. G. Cornelis van Kooten, professor and Canada Research Chair in environmental studies and climate change, Dept. of Economics, University of Victoria

Dr. Petr Chylek, adjunct professor, Dept. of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax

Dr./Cdr. M. R. Morgan, FRMS, climate consultant, former meteorology advisor to the World Meteorological Organization. Previously research scientist in climatology at University of Exeter, U.K.

Dr. Keith D. Hage, climate consultant and professor emeritus of Meteorology, University of Alberta

Dr. David E. Wojick, P.Eng., energy consultant, Star Tannery, Va., and Sioux Lookout, Ont.

Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, Surrey, B.C.

Dr. Douglas Leahey, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary

Paavo Siitam, M.Sc., agronomist, chemist, Cobourg, Ont.

Dr. Chris de Freitas, climate scientist, associate professor, The University of Auckland, N.Z.

Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Dr. Freeman J. Dyson, emeritus professor of physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J.

Mr. George Taylor, Dept. of Meteorology, Oregon State University; Oregon State climatologist; past president, American Association of State Climatologists

Dr. Ian Plimer, professor of geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide; emeritus professor of earth sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia

Dr. R.M. Carter, professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia

Mr. William Kininmonth, Australasian Climate Research, former Head National Climate Centre, Australian Bureau of Meteorology; former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology, Scientific and Technical Review

Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute

Dr. Gerrit J. van der Lingen, geologist/paleoclimatologist, Climate Change Consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand

Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, professor of environmental sciences, University of Virginia

Dr. Nils-Axel Morner, emeritus professor of paleogeophysics & geodynamics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden

Dr. Gary D. Sharp, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, Calif.

Dr. Roy W. Spencer, principal research scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville

Dr. Al Pekarek, associate professor of geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud, Minn.

Dr. Marcel Leroux, professor emeritus of climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS

Dr. Paul Reiter, professor, Institut Pasteur, Unit of Insects and Infectious Diseases, Paris, France. Expert reviewer, IPCC Working group II, chapter 8 (human health)

Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, physicist and chairman, Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland

Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, reader, Dept. of Geography, University of Hull, U.K.; editor, Energy & Environment

Dr. Hans H.J. Labohm, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations) and an economist who has focused on climate change

Dr. Lee C. Gerhard, senior scientist emeritus, University of Kansas, past director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey

Dr. Asmunn Moene, past head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway

Dr. August H. Auer, past professor of atmospheric science, University of Wyoming; previously chief meteorologist, Meteorological Service (MetService) of New Zealand

Dr. Vincent Gray, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of ‘Climate Change 2001,’ Wellington, N.Z.

Dr. Howard Hayden, emeritus professor of physics, University of Connecticut

Dr Benny Peiser, professor of social anthropology, Faculty of Science, Liverpool John Moores University, U.K.

Dr. Jack Barrett, chemist and spectroscopist, formerly with Imperial College London, U.K.

Dr. William J.R. Alexander, professor emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa. Member, United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000

Dr. S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences, University of Virginia; former director, U.S. Weather Satellite Service

Dr. Harry N.A. Priem, emeritus professor of planetary geology and isotope geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences; past president of the Royal Netherlands Geological & Mining Society

Dr. Robert H. Essenhigh, E.G. Bailey professor of energy conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University

Dr. Sallie Baliunas, astrophysicist and climate researcher, Boston, Mass.

Douglas Hoyt, senior scientist at Raytheon (retired) and co-author of the book The Role of the Sun in Climate Change; previously with NCAR, NOAA, and the World Radiation Center, Davos, Switzerland

Dipl.-Ing. Peter Dietze, independent energy advisor and scientific climate and carbon modeller, official IPCC reviewer, Bavaria, Germany

Dr. Boris Winterhalter, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland

Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden

Dr. Hugh W. Ellsaesser, physicist/meteorologist, previously with the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Calif.; atmospheric consultant.

Dr. Art Robinson, founder, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, Cave Junction, Ore.

Dr. Arthur Rorsch, emeritus professor of molecular genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands; past board member, Netherlands organization for applied research (TNO) in environmental, food and public health

Dr. Alister McFarquhar, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.; international economist

Dr. Richard S. Courtney, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.

Ignoring these people, who are not students destined to graduated in 2010, and whose expertise in the area of science could definitely be greater than that of an administrative assistant, web designer and activists–Dessler concentrated on Thomas Ring, a chemical engineer by training. As if that is an example of someone who’s not ‘qualified’ in comparison with the IPCC nuts behind their exaggerated fictional reports!

DK at the Devil’s Kitchen concludes:

The IPCC are liars and as the whole anthropogenic climate change crap unravels—even on the Left—they cling ever more desperately to their outdated theories by propagating yet more obfuscations, half-truths and outright lies.

Wake up, people!—we are being lied to, and it is so that the political establishment can make complete slaves of us all.

Also see this article at the Wall Street Journal entitled “Not So Hot”.

Andrew Bolt’s blog: IPCC claims drown in the seas:

Christopher Monckton says the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has quietly admitted to exaggerating the possible rise in sea levels. But it’s still hiding an even worse distortion:

The (IPCC’s 2007) report’s first table of figures - inserted by the IPCC’s bureaucrats after the scientists had finalized the draft, and without their consent - listed four contributions to sea-level rise. The bureaucrats had multiplied the effect of melting ice from the Greenland and West Antarctic Ice Sheets by 10…

Until I wrote to point out the error, no one had noticed. The IPCC, on receiving my letter, quietly corrected, moved and relabeled the erroneous table… The IPCC now says the combined contribution of the two great ice-sheets to sea-level rise will be less than seven centimeters after 100 years, not seven meters imminently, and that the Greenland ice sheet (which thickened by 50 cm between 1995 and 2005) might only melt after several millennia, probably by natural causes, just as it last did 850,000 years ago. (Al) Gore, mendaciously assisted by the IPCC bureaucracy, had exaggerated a hundredfold…

At the very heart of the IPCC’s calculations lurks an error more serious than any of these. The IPCC says: “The CO2 radiative forcing increased by 20 percent during the last 10 years (1995-2005).” Radiative forcing quantifies increases in radiant energy in the atmosphere, and hence in temperature. The atmospheric concentration of CO2 in 1995 was 360 parts per million. In 2005 it was just 5 percent higher, at 378 ppm. But each additional molecule of CO2 in the air causes a smaller radiant-energy increase than its predecessor. So the true increase in radiative forcing was 1 percent, not 20 percent. The IPCC has exaggerated the CO2 effect 20-fold.

The most intriguing thing about the first error mentioned by Monckton is not just that it was made, and how. It is that no one but Monckton pointed it out.

Christopher Monckton seems to be the only one picking holes in global warming’s holy writ produced by the IPCC. This is proof that global warming enthusiasts’ vacuous calculations are merely for the goal of garnering more government money; not for the sake of ’science’.

On a tip from Brendan.

PS: For Ed Darrell in my comments section regarding DDT from Lord Monckton from his article at the Heartland foundation while he’s in Bali:

Even if the Gore/IPCC exaggerations were true, which they are not, the economic cost of trying to mitigate climate change by trying to cut our emissions through carbon trading and other costly market interferences would far outweigh any possible climatic benefit.

The international community has galloped lemming-like over the cliff twice before. Twenty years ago the UN decided not to regard AIDS as a fatal infection. Carriers of the disease were not identified and isolated. Result: 25 million deaths in poor countries.

Thirty-five years ago the world decided to ban DDT, the only effective agent against malaria. Result: 40 million deaths in poor countries. The World Health Organization lifted the DDT ban on Sept. 15 last year. It now recommends the use of DDT to control malaria. Dr. Arata Kochi of the WHO said that politics could no longer be allowed to stand in the way of the science and the data. Amen to that.

Supposedly the lemming thing is a myth and has been debunked…but it still doesn’t get rid of the question “if your friends told you to jump off a cliff, would you?” And so the environmentalists haven’t learned their lesson from one faux pas to the next. It’s repeating the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

The only thing that’s different is SOME people actually LEARN from history. LOL

There is an interesting discussion going on in comments at TWA, more cut-and-pastes of Atheists’ supposedly debunking the bible because it’s unscientific. What’s apparent to me is their apparent ignorance of real science (similar to the lack of scientific evidence for the victorian-age myth; the Theory of Evolution). I already lifted one of my responses, now I’m lifting the other.

There are four items that Islamists and their Atheist buddies use to proclaim that the Bible is not factual or ’scientific’.

• Rabbits do not chew their cud LEV 11:6
• The bat is not a bird LEV 11:19
• Insects do NOT have four feet LEV 11:21
• Snakes, while built low, do not eat dirt GEN 3:14

Let’s take them one at a time.

*Rabbits do not chew their cud LEV 11:6

Leviticus 11:6And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you. - King James Version

Actually what is at issue is Lev 11:5-6.

Leviticus 11:5-6⁵And the coney, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.  ⁶And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.   - King James Version

Another translation:

(Lev. 11:5-6) - “‘Likewise, the rock badger, for though it chews cud, it does not divide the hoof, it is unclean to you; the rabbit also, for though it chews cud, it does not divide the hoof, it is unclean to you.”

In 11:6, In this verse, the animal is a hare. The hare is auto-coprophagous, which can be seen as a form of cud-chewing, where the cud “ferments” externally.

In 11:5, the animal is the rock badger, or hyrax. “The English authoritative literature (Biological Abstracts) did not state that Hyraxes regurgitated and rechewed their food until 1967.” (Source)

To further this notation, is interesting information at
Christian-Forum.net:

In 1964 Zoologist Hubert Hendrichs observed hyraxes at the Munich zoo in Germany and noticed swallowing movements…..he observed a Hyrax making swallowing movements although not eating….He subsequently investigated more closely. Further observation showed that the Hyraxes chew the cud mainly at night for about an hour…..

The reason the Hyrax’s cud chewing behavior remained unconfirmed so long is that the animal chews the cud as little as 30 minutes a day and usually at night. Unless hyraxes are held in captivity their cud chewing would not be noticeable.

Some people might raise the objection that the hyrax is not classified as a ruminant according to some science reference sources. Such an objection, while understandable, is not valid and is due to a misunderstanding. Specifically, in 1970 the Bible-Science Newsletter stated the following:

“Pasche quotes Friedrich Bettex, who in turn cites the distinguished authority on ruminants, Prof. Ruetimeyer of Basel:

“…I would call attention to the circumstances that in today’s anatomical and embryological classification the practice of rumination is not decisive by itself. In other words, an animal may chew the cud and yet not be classified among the ruminantia.”

Now lets be very practical. Would God tell the ancient Israelites to eat or not eat a food based on the animals embryological classification? Common sense would tell you that such a methodology would be wholly inappropriate. So it would fair to say that a reasonable person cannot raise the objection that a hyrax is not considered by all to be a ruminant according to zoological classification system where a true ruminant has a four chambered stomach and a ruminant can have a three chambered stomach. In addition, according to the zoological standard an animal must also plus meet anatomical and embryological criteria! Incidentally, the hyrax has a fermentation chamber in addition to its having a stomach.

SYMBIOSIS WITHIN THE VERTEBRATE DIGESTIVE SYSTEM

Bacterial Digestion of Cellulose Within Animals - Vertebrates lack enzymes to digest plant material. Some bacteria can do so and are harbored by animals… Rats and rabbits redigest cellulose another way. [They] eat feces and literally redigest them a second time. Efficiency approaches that of ruminants.

In a more detailed version, Margert “Casey” Kilcullen-Steiner, (M.S., L.A.Tg) writes:

Rabbits are sometimes called “pseudo-ruminants”… The rhythmic cycle of coprophagy of pure cecal contents practiced by all rabbits allows utilization of microbial protein and fermentation products, as well as recycling of certain minerals. Whereas the feces commonly seen excreted by rabbits are fairly large, dry and ovoid, excreted singly, and consist of fibrous plant material, cecotrophs are about half that size, occur in moist bundles stuck together with mucus, and are very fine textured and odiferous. They are seldom seen, as the rabbit plucks them directly from the anus as they are passed. Normal rabbits do not allow cecotrophs to drop to the floor or ground, and their presence there indicates a mechanical problem or illness in the rabbit.

Cud can come from either end and rabbits chew it again. Knowing this, would you still want to eat a rabbit/hare/hyrax?

Once again, the Bible is right and the skeptics are wrong.

* The bat is not a bird LEV 11:19

Leviticus 11:19And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat. - King James Version

From Biology and the Bible:

Atheists and their Islamic friends want to make this a case for biological classification but it is really one of semantics and translation. The Hebrew word in Leviticus 11:13-25 is “oph”. (G V Wigram, Englishman’s Hebrew and Chaldee Concordance, Bagster & Sons, pp 911-912)

In a similar passage in Deuteronomy 14:11-20 the word is “psippor” in verse 11 and “oph” in 19-20. (Wigram p. 1079) Neither word completely corresponds to the English “bird” or “fowl”.

“Tsippor” is used of birds and bats. “Oph” also refers to birds and bats. However, when “Oph” is qualified by the word “creeping things” (Hebrew = “sheretz”; Wigram p. 1327) it refers to insects.

If we translate “oph” and “tsippor” as “flying creatures” or “winged creatures” the skeptic’s complaint is answered since both birds and bats are winged creatures!

The misunderstanding began when the translators of the King James Bible, in the 17th century, translated “oph” as “fowl” in Leviticus 11:13, 20.

*Insects do NOT have four feet LEV 11:21

This makes the broad assumption that the “…flying creeping things…” must be insects, and is false. The Hebrew word translated “flying” in verses 21 & 23 is also translated as “fowl” in verses 13 & 20. The word is neither specific to birds nor to insects, but simply refers to flying creatures.

Leviticus 11:20-23²⁰All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you.  ²¹Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;  ²²Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind.  ²³But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.   - King James Version

Lev. 11:20-23 All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you. Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth; even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind. But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.

The contextual subject is not insects, but flying creatures, as mentioned previously. The writer speaks of several ‘flying creatures’ (birds) which could not be eaten (v 13-19).

Leviticus 11:13-19¹³And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the osprey,  ¹⁴And the vulture, and the kite after his kind;  ¹⁵Every raven after his kind;  ¹⁶And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckoo, and the hawk after his kind,  ¹⁷And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl,  ¹⁸And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle,  ¹⁹And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.   - King James Version

At the end of these, the bat is mentioned (also refer June 3, 2001), which fits the description given in verse 20, “…fowls (flying creatures) that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you.” There are several varieties of bats (all flying creatures that creep, going upon all four), none of which could be eaten.

The writer then mentions that some “…flying creeping thing(s) that goeth upon all four…” can be eaten. Among those that can be eaten, the locust is mentioned. Incidentally, locust sport 4 common legs which are above the 2 large jumping legs.

Notice the differentiation between the four feet and the “legs above their feet”. The large legs on insects such as the locust, grasshopper, cricket (beetle) etc., are considered legs, but they are different than the other legs which are called “feet” in every instance here. You can add the four feet (legs) to the legs above their feet (legs) and get 6 legs if you like, however, the Hebrews chose to differentiate between the regular legs on the insects described here and the large legs used for jumping or lifting off to take flight.

Again, no contradiction.

* Snakes, while built low, do not eat dirt GEN 3:14

Genesis 3:14And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: - King James Version

The curse spoken by the Lord in Genesis 3:14 doesn’t condemn the serpent to a life of eating dirt. Though the serpent slithers upon the dirt, and thus could possibly inadvertantly ingest dust, the text bears a more symbolic/figurative meaning. It is a statement signifying the detestable nature and low esteem that the serpent now has. Snakes (for te most part) are branded as disgusting and avoided with horror.

In Micah 7:16-17 we read, “The nations shall see and be confounded at all their might: they shall lay their hands upon their mouth, their ears shall be deaf. They shall lick the dust like a serpent, they shall move out of their holes like worms of the earth: they shall be afraid of the LORD our God, and shall fear because of thee.”

Are we to understand that these people will literally eat dust just as serpents literally eat dust? No, rather, they shall be detestable and despised, even as the serpent is (also see Isaiah 65:25).

From Bible Contradictions Answered:

There are two ways of looking at this. First, snakes use their tongues as their sense of smell, and do indeed ingest dirt as they flick the ground with their tongues. However, it’s more likely that this was meant figuratively. Being brought low, and eating dirt are used several times in the Bible to indicate abject humiliation.

Ps. 72:9 They that dwell in the wilderness shall bow before him; and his enemies shall lick the dust.

Is. 49:23 And kings shall be thy nursing fathers, and their queens thy nursing mothers: they shall bow down to thee with their face toward the earth, and lick up the dust of thy feet.

Mic. 7:17 They shall lick the dust like a serpent.

This verse in Genesis is simply a way of saying that Satan would be cursed and humiliated. It does not mean that the serpent literally subsists on dirt as it’s main food source.

These points demonstrate how some people pull out retreads that might have worked in the past. Let it be known that they don’t work at TWA, and they won’t work here. Anyone confronted with this BS is free to lift this post with the attribution for the sources.

The more I read and take in information, the more I think that you have to be ignorant to fall for these things…either that, or be like Meatbrain; someone whose vision is extremely limited in conceptualizing ideas; cannot understand abstract concepts (like poetry, lyrical or other types of comparisons for example); and must adhere to narrow methodologies which fit within a particular worldview. Someone like that is disconnected from reason, rational thought and reality; things are filtered through an overly simplistic one-dimensional view; through strictly linear thinking, taking things literally and demonstrates an incapability of connecting the dots.

If Islamists or muslims believe Christianity is a ’sister’ religion, then why are people like Keith Ellison joining forces with Atheists to discredit people of the Christian faith? The Koran says that people who forget the law of Moses, in particular the ten Commandments, will burn in Hell forever.

Here are the ten commandments in the Koran.

There are numerous biblical verses that say the earth is round, but I still find it interesting that Islam Awareness would propagate this mythology. Isn’t it bad enough that Islamofacists want to force the world into dhimmitude and pay the jizyah or die by the sword. I’m not sure if the jizyah is in the Koran, but killing the infidel ’smiting him by the neck’ certainly is.

As this article says, I like to stick with biblical truths instead of the trivialities of man.

A scientist or someone interested in science may be surprised to learn that, 2,200 years before men in general accepted the fact that the earth is round, the Hebrew Prophet Isaiah wrote:

Isaiah 40:22It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in: - King James Version

*Circle=Hebrew “chuwg” or “hhug”, means “sphere”, according to Davidson’s Concordance.

There’s also

Proverbs 8:27When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth: - King James Version

“When he established the heavens, I was there, when he drew a circle (chuwg or hhug for sphere) on the face of the deep.” (another translation)

Job 26:10He hath compassed the waters with bounds, until the day and night come to an end. - King James Version

He has described a circle (Hebrew-chuwg or hhug for “sphere”) on the face of the waters, at the boundary between light and darkness.” (another translation)

A scientifically inclined or interested person would probably agree with the Bible if shown

Job 26:7He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing. - King James Version

This says that God is “hanging the earth upon nothing.” All scientists know that the earth is hanging in space with no visible means of support. (Reference: Davidson’s Concordance)

Scientists tell us that the universe is expanding. So…the biblical statements that God stretches out the heavens are not unscientific, but completely agree with what today’s scientists claim about the expansion of the universe! So much for the arguments on the Bible’s supposed unscientific views of the universe.

The Earth is shaped like a sphere (round) and rotates:

Isaiah 40:22It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in: - King James Version

That is from 746-680 BC. Also, there is

Luke 17:34-36³⁴I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.  ³⁵Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left.  ³⁶Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.   - King James Version

From 60 AD. Luke 17:34-36 depicts Christ’s Second Coming as happening while some are asleep at night and others are working at day time activities in the field, an indication of a rotating earth with day and night at the same time. (Source-CNN report title Star Survey)

Psalms 19:4-6⁴Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun,  ⁵Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race.  ⁶His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.   - King James Version

The sun has an orbit of its own (there is another interpretation of this verse that suggests it is talking about how the Sun appears to rise in the East and sets in the West).

This is from about 1000 BC, but the discovery was made only recently that the sun is travelling through space at about 600,000 miles per hour, in an orbit that would take an estimated 230,000,000 years to complete. (Source - CNN report titled Star survey)

The Bible includes a number of references regarding the geophysical structure of the earth which revealed an understanding which was far ahead of common awareness. To truly appreciate the relevance of these statements, one must understand the state of existing knowledge about the earth at the time these words were written.

Although data concerning historical scientific knowledge is rare, it suggests that almost nothing was known about the earth’s oceans, atmosphere, or the structure of the earth’s shape and composition. The nations surrounding Israel believed that the earth was flat, resting on the back of elephants or turtles. There was no knowledge of lighter-than-air gases. Rain was said to be sent from the gods, lightning and thunder represented the anger of the gods. Even volcanic activity was not connected to any physical property of the earth. In sharp contrast, the biblical accounts refer to geophysical facts in clear and precise detail thousands of years before their confirmation by science. While God is sometimes seen to manifest His anger through physical means such as earthquakes–with a specific purpose in mind, the Bible makes it clear that earthquakes are not in themselves a symbol of His anger. This is a significant difference from every other religious belief of those times.

The course of trade winds:

Ecclesiastes 1:6The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits. - King James Version

This was a remarkable statement given the earth’s primitive knowledge of atmospheric conditions. In Solomon’s time (Ecclesiastes was written around 935BC), there were no scientific revelations about the trade winds that move in a regular, predictable pattern around the earth. Sailors finally began mapping these winds during the age of exploration about 2000 years after this was written.

Ocean currents revealed

“…and the fish of the sea, all that swim the paths of the seas.”

Psalms 8:8The fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas. - King James Version

The Bible infers a knowledge of ocean currents at a time when almost nothing was known about the ocean. It was not until 1845 that Matthew Fontaine Maury, inspired by this verse, began discovering and mapping the existence of ocean currents. Even today oceanography is hailed as the “last great frontier” of scientific study because so little is known about our oceans. Some people will dismiss this passage as an accidental reference, merely transposing a land-based concept (paths) to the surface of the water. Perhaps. But a closer look suggests that this verse distinctly refers to paths (currents) within the depths of the ocean, not upon its surface, as most fish do not swim on the surface.

The existence of hydrothermal springs

“Have you journeyed to the springs of the sea or walked in the recesses of the deep?”

Job 38:16Hast thou entered into the springs of the sea? or hast thou walked in the search of the depth? - King James Version

God revealed the existence of freshwater springs under the ocean floor about 4000 years ago. Only in the last 20 years have scientists discovered that huge springs of heated water pour out of the ocean floor in numerous places. In 1965 scientists first theorized that such vents could exist. In the late 1970’s, oceanographers with Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute finally saw and photographed one from the deep water submersible Alvin. Until then it was impossible to travel to these depths because of the intense pressures encountered. Since then many more vents have been found. These are usually referred to as “hydrothermal vents” which are composed of steam and minerals flowing at high pressure into the sea as a result of cracks in the earth’s crust. To anyone without oceanographic knowledge they look exactly like “springs of the sea.” How did Job know about these phenomena located at such crushing depths?

Polar ice caps revealed

“From whose womb comes the ice? Who gives birth to the frost from the heavens when the waters become hard as stone, when the surface of the deep is frozen?”

Job 38:29-30²⁹Out of whose womb came the ice? and the hoary frost of heaven, who hath gendered it?  ³⁰The waters are hid as with a stone, and the face of the deep is frozen.   - King James Version

The phrase “surface of the deep is frozen” is a very clear reference to polar ice caps found only in the farthest reaches of the north. How could someone like Job or his contemporaries, living in the area of Saudi Arabia in ancient times, have known about polar ice caps? Not even the harshest winter could have produced a frozen ocean surface in that region of the world. Some early explorers were known to have traveled north, but with no navigational aids (the compass was not invented until the seventh century AD and didn’t appear west of China until 1100AD) their efforts were futile. A Greek explorer was reported to have traveled as far north as the island of Great Britain around 1300BC. However, nothing indicates that he discovered ice floes and this is highly unlikely because he would not have made such a trip in winter.

The hydrological cycle

“He draws up the drops of water, which distill as rain to the streams; the clouds pour down their moisture and abundant showers fall on mankind. Who can understand how he spreads out the clouds, how he thunders from his pavilion?” Job 36:27-29²⁷For he maketh small the drops of water: they pour down rain according to the vapour thereof:  ²⁸Which the clouds do drop and distil upon man abundantly.  ²⁹Also can any understand the spreadings of the clouds, or the noise of his tabernacle?   - King James Version

“who calls for the waters of the sea and pours them out over the face of the land–the LORD is his name” Amos 5:8Seek him that maketh the seven stars and Orion, and turneth the shadow of death into the morning, and maketh the day dark with night: that calleth for the waters of the sea, and poureth them out upon the face of the earth: The LORD is his name: - King James Version

This reference to evaporation is startling in its clarity and detail, and centuries ahead of its time.

Amos 9:6It is he that buildeth his stories in the heaven, and hath founded his troop in the earth; he that calleth for the waters of the sea, and poureth them out upon the face of the earth: The LORD is his name. - King James Version

God revealed the existence of a hydrological cycle–water evaporating from the sea into the form of clouds and being dropped onto land as rain–about 3500 years before these concepts became known to scientific man. In fact, even after people understood the hydrological cycle, they believed that rain, being fresh water, came from rivers and lakes. The discovery that rain comes mostly from seawater as described in the Bible is fairly recent. In the 1600’s it was finally realized that water could evaporate as a gaseous substance. In 1676, Pierre Perrault and Edme Marriotte made a scientific breakthrough by describing the hydrologic cycle in detail. Yet the Bible described the process thousands of years earlier. [REFERENCE]

————–

But back to the Bible says the earth is flat claim by “Islam awareness”.

Christopher Columbus knew the earth was round, and so did the Icelanders he visited in 1482.

Eratostheses of Alexandria (c.276-c.194 B.C.), used geometry to measure the earth’s circumference, so he also knew the earth was round.

Claiming that ‘the people of the book’ are ignorant because of cherry-picked verses from the bible merely proves your ideology, not that what you claim is fact.

Quoting Bible passage citing “..the four CORNERS of the earth..” merely corresponds with what most people are aware of: the four compass points. But this doesn’t prove anything. This isn’t evidence that the Bible is “unscientific”. The next time you pick up your Nautical Almanac (surely you have one, you’re so scientific)—a scientific book–notice how it uses the same style of phenomenological language when referring to “sunrise” and “sunset”.

There is nothing unscientific about using figures of speech–poetry, really–to put a handle on an idea, making it easier to pack around. Believing the Nautical Almanac can save your life while at sea. Believing the Bible can likewise save your life, both in this age and in the one to come

Whereas in the Koran, it commands to ‘kill the unbelievers wherever you find them’, says it’s okay to lie, beat your wife, even kill your wife, rape, have slaves, have sex with your slaves, and take your victims’ belongings, which in my mind sounds like stealing. Zawahiri and Bin Laden both quote verses from the Koran as did Zarqawi and other Islamic murderers before them.

The Christian Response to the Flat-Earth Bible (Christian Response to Islam Awareness)

The Christian Bible is a scentific book

Christ is alive; he walked after he was crucified, and his disciples witnessed it. Muhammad died, and he is in his tomb today. We have the shroud of turin which proves what Christ went through before he was crucified, yet the shroud is all we have left; we have no body because He is Risen. There is the difference in all the religions - no other religion’s propheit was given life after death in the literal sense like Jesus was. Islamists think that Jesus was a prophet like Muhammad. So why, then, wasn’t Muhammad resurrected? Jesus lives; Muhammad is dead…and so are Buddha and all the rest.

“War is deceit,” said the Prophet Muhammad, according to Hadith 4:269.

And the dishonest narrative that Islamists are putting forth, like “Hitler was a Christian” (disproven; Hitler was an admirer of Islam and believed Christianity was an extension of Judaism which needed to be destroyed, reference the Mufti of Jeruselum, the muslim faction in the SS, Saddam’s Uncle who raised him was a nazi, Saddam carried Mein Kempf in his back pocket) and “The Bible says the earth is flat”-so therefore it’s ‘unscientific’ (also disproven as I’ve shown) are blatant examples the Islamists today are more than willing to take that advice to heart as they’re moving the world to Dar al-Islam from dar al-Harb. (reference) Right now, we might full well be here in the US, in Dar al-Dawa or Dar al-Amn, but the ultimate goal that Islamists have proclaimed outright is to drive the infidels into submission and for sharia law to become the ruling law in the US.

The topic of Islamic jihad is blanketed by deceivers, and they are as clever and persistent as any the world has ever seen: taking Muhammad’s dictum that “war is deceit” to the max. I have tried to expose many of these deceptions at Dhimmi Watch, but the positive reception accorded to CAIR’s loophole-laden fatwa indicates that they are still largely successful. And as long as that continues, we are all that much more at risk.-Robert Spencer

Naturally, Reuters would put this lie in print…

WASHINGTON (Reuters) — The American bald eagle, pushed to near-extinction in the United States by the pesticide DDT, is now recovered and will be removed from the Endangered Species list, the U.S. interior secretary said on Thursday.

Birds were not effected by DDT, in fact, bird populations increased during the years that DDT was in use.

The Bald Eagle driven to extinction myth from DDT is a lie. (Source: Junkscience.com)

1. Bald eagles were reportedly threatened with extinction in 1921 — 25 years before widespread use of DDT.

   [Van Name, WG. 1921. Ecology 2:76]

2. Alaska paid over $100,000 in bounties for 115,000 bald eagles between 1917 and 1942.

   [Anon. Science News Letter, July 3, 1943]

3. The bald eagle had vanished from New England by 1937.

   [Bent, AC. 1937. Raptorial Birds of America. US National Museum Bull 167:321-349]

4. After 15 years of heavy and widespread usage of DDT, Audubon Society ornithologists counted 25 percent more eagles per observer in 1960 than during the pre-DDT 1941 bird census.

   [Marvin, PH. 1964 Birds on the rise. Bull Entomol Soc Amer 10(3):184-186; Wurster, CF. 1969 Congressional Record S4599, May 5, 1969; Anon. 1942. The 42nd Annual Christmas Bird Census. Audubon Magazine 44:1-75 (Jan/Feb 1942; Cruickshank, AD (Editor). 1961. The 61st Annual Christmas Bird Census. Audubon Field Notes 15(2):84-300; White-Stevens, R.. 1972. Statistical analyses of Audubon Christmas Bird censuses. Letter to New York Times, August 15, 1972]

5. No significant correlation between DDE residues and shell thickness was reported in a large series of bald eagle eggs.

   [Postupalsky, S. 1971. (DDE residues and shell thickness). Canadian Wildlife Service manuscript, April 8, 1971]

6. Thickness of eggshells from Florida, Maine and Wisconsin was found to not be correlated with DDT residues.
   

   Data from Krantz, WC. 1970. Pesticides Monitoring Journal 4(3):136-140.

   State	Thickness (mm)	DDE Residue (ppm)
   Florida	.50	About 10
   Maine	.50	About 22
   Wisconsin	.55	About 4

7. U.S. Forest Service studies reported an increase in nesting bald eagle productivity (51 in 1964 to 107 in 1970).

   [U.S. Forest Service (Milwaukee, WI). 1970. Annual Report on Bald Eagle Status]

8. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologists fed large doses of DDT to captive bald eagles for 112 days and concluded that “DDT residues encountered by eagles in the environment would not adversely affect eagles or their eggs.”

   [Stickel, L. 1966. Bald eagle-pesticide relationships. Trans 31st N Amer Wildlife Conference, pp.190-200]

9. Wildlife authorities attributed bald eagle population reductions to a “widespread loss of suitable habitat”, but noted that “illegal shooting continues to be the leading cause of direct mortality in both adult and immature bald eagles.”

   [Anon.. 1978. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered Species Tech Bull 3:8-9]

10. Every bald eagle found dead in the U.S., between 1961-1977 (266 birds) was analyzed by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologists who reported no adverse effects caused by DDT or its residues.

    [Reichel, WL. 1969. (Pesticide residues in 45 bald eagles found dead in the U.S. 1964-1965). Pesticides Monitoring J 3(3)142-144; Belisle, AA. 1972. (Pesticide residues and PCBs and mercury, in bald eagles found dead in the U.S. 1969-1970). Pesticides Monitoring J 6(3): 133-138; Cromartie, E. 1974. (Organochlorine pesticides and PCBs in 37 bald eagles found dead in the U.S. 1971-1972). Pesticides Monitoring J 9:11-14; Coon, NC. 1970. (Causes of bald eagle mortality in the US 1960-1065). Journal of Wildlife Diseases 6:72-76]

11. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologists linked high intake of mercury from contaminated fish with eagle reproductive problems.

    [Spann, JW, RG Heath, JF Kreitzer, LN Locke. 1972. (Lethal and reproductive effects of mercury on birds) Science 175:328- 331]

12. Shooting, power line electrocution, collisions in flight and poisoning from eating ducks containing lead shot were ranked by the National Wildlife Federation as late as 1984 as the leading causes of eagle deaths.

    [Anon. 1984. National Wildlife Federation publication. (Eagle deaths)]

100 things you should know about DDT by J. Gordon Edwards and Steven Milloy

Note: The information presented here has been largely drawn from materials compiled by J. Gordon Edwards, professor of entomology at San Jose State University. Dr. Edwards testified at the 1971-1972 EPA hearings on DDT. Some research and all editing/formatting was done by Steven J. Milloy, publisher of junkscience.com.

Copyright 1999 junkscience.com. All rights reserved.

NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only.

This is a patented work station, based on the principles of space efficiency and ergonomics.

What a cool design. The descriptions at the douglasball website discuss the advantages of working in this thing; cutting down on distractions, increasing productivity by as much as 40%. In addition, it is ergonomic! Sitting in this thing is like sitting in a small plane’s cockpit, everything you need is within easy reach.

Principal Advantages

* A private way of shutting out the distractions of your environment.
* Lighting which is diffused, warm, and glowing, preventing any glare on the screen, and reducing eye fatigue.
* A relationship between seat and computer that is at once flexible, comfortable and ergonomically correct.

I wrote a long time ago about a group of Christians who were arrested in Philadelphia for ‘hate crimes’, so I fully expected it to turn into a trend. Watching the antics of the weird group the Westboro Baptists who protest at soldiers funerals was another frightening thing, because I in no way believe that those people are Christians; they preach hate, using scripture in a manner that is not consistent with Christian teachings. Their contention is that God is killing our soldiers because we’ve become a nation of sodomites. As far as I can tell, it’s Islamofascists who are killing our soldiers, because they want to get rid of western culture.

The life expectancy of a 20-year-old gay or bisexual man is 8-20 years less than for all men. “nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently age 20 years will not reach their 65th birthday.” Source: Hogg. RS., Strathdee, SA., Craib, KJP., O’Shaughnessy, MV., Montainer, JSG., Schechter, MT., ” Modeling the impact of HIV Disease on Mortality in Gay and Bisexual Men,” International Journal of Epidemiology, Vol. 26, No. 3, 1997, pp. 657-61.

Using four databases in 1998, another studied suggested that homosexual activity could be associated with a shortened lifespan of 20-30 years. Source: Cameron, P., Cameron, K., Playfair, WL., ” Does Homosexual Activity Shorten Life? “, Psychological Reports, 1998, 83, pp. 847-66.

They talk about the hazards of smoking, and the hazards of junk food, but studies show that engaging in a homosexual lifestyle can shave 10-20, even 30 years off of your life, yet there is no outrage about it. If you love someone, you get him and the family to treatment or help in order to help them recover from self-destructive bahaviors.

David Bass, 2006:

1. Sexually transmitted diseases – Research gathered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or CDC, has found significantly higher rates of rectal gonorrhea, HIV/AIDS and all three strains of Hepatitis among homosexuals. Other studies have likewise linked homosexuality with increased rates of Human Papillomavirus (the leading cause of cervical cancer worldwide), syphilis and anal cancer. Although self-identified homosexuals account for less than 5 percent of the American population, they are the carriers of over 50 percent of HIV/AIDS cases.

2. Risky behaviors – Campaigns to foster so-called “safe sex” among homosexuals have done nothing to reduce risky behavior. A 1997 CDC report found that among homosexuals who had unprotected anal intercourse and multiple sexual partners, 68 percent were entirely unaware of the HIV status of their partners.

3. Promiscuity – A large percentage of homosexual men have hundreds of sexual partners throughout their lifetime. According to a profile of 2,583 homosexuals published in the Journal of Sex Research, only 2.7 reported having had sexual relations with only one partner, compared to the largest percentage that claimed to have had between 101 and 500 partners over their lifetime. Compare that to the markedly lower promiscuity rates among married heterosexual couples. According to the latest statistics from the CDC, 92 percent of married males and 93 percent of married females reported having had only one sexual partner over the previous twelve months (presumably their spouses).

4. Domestic abuse – A survey conducted by the Journal of Social Service Research found that more than half of lesbian respondents reported having been abused by a female partner or lover. Conversely, research has found that married heterosexual women experience the lowest rates of domestic abuse compared to other types of relationships.

5. Life span – A 1997 study published in the International Journal of Epidemiology found that even under “the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban center are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871.” The same study estimated that homosexual behavior reduces the lifespan of males by eight to 20 years. Comparatively, the CDC has found that male and female smokers lose an average of 13.2 to 14.5 years of life, respectively.

These findings are not those of conservative pro-family advocacy groups, but of non-partisan, non-political medical journals and organizations devoted to protecting public health. What conclusion can logically be reached other than that homosexual behavior is both hazardous to the public at large and often deadly to those who practice it?

Homosexuals need our tough love, not blind love. The problem with the gay agenda is that they bury facts that could save peoples’ lives in order for the ‘anything goes’ sexuality, which is dangerous.

Now we have an article by Matt Barber at Townhall, Fake Anti-“Gay” “Hate Crimes” Keep Piling Up, from May 3rd.

The Associated Press is reporting the latest in a string of fraudulent high profile “hate crime” reports by homosexual activists who are evidently having trouble coming up with legitimate incidents of “hate crimes” against homosexuals to bolster their deceptive agenda. “No problem, we’ll just keep making them up,” apparently goes the mindset.

As Congress reportedly prepared to vote Thursday on “hate crimes” bill H.R. 1592, the evidence is overwhelming. The entire concept is built on a foundation of fraud.

Very well-written and makes a devastating point of truth in the face of gay activists who also played a part in having homosexuality removed from the list of psychiatric disorders. The important point to be made there is - it was not because of new science that they forced the American Psychiatric Association to do that; it was because of political pressure.

Just like in the case of global warming, it’s not based on science - it’s based on politics.

“H.R. 1592 is a discriminatory measure that criminalizes thoughts, feelings, and beliefs [and] has the potential of interfering with religious liberty and freedom of speech,” according to a white paper submitted by Glen Lavy, of the Alliance Defense Fund. (Unruh, 2007)

The House voted on this bill 237-180 yesterday. HR 1591 was introduced by our Islamist from Michigan, Rep. John Conyers, who might as well have swore on the Koran, not the Bible, when he got into office. (See this, his socialist and Islamist history exposed.) As a socialist and Islamist, it makes sense that he would deny a 100-year tradition of Judao Christian heritage here in the U.S., and in my opinion, is someone who’d rather see sharia law the ruling law of our land. What Conyers did, IMO, was what Bin Laden would do if he were elected into office; deny our laws. Of course his bill is means to an end; targeting Christianity, just as they do in the muslim world, to get rid of freedom of speech, just as they do in the muslim world, and the Christian religion in the United States, on which our laws are founded.

The White House stated “The administration favors strong criminal penalties for violent crime, including crimes based on personal characteristics, such as race, color, religion, or national origin. However … if H.R. 1592 were presented to the president, his senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bill,” the proposal is “unnecessary and constitutionally questionable.”

Previous: John Conyers, Socialist in the House

House Progressive Caucus and the Media

In other deviant sex news, even though the libs are trying to rewrite history, and recreate our laws along the lines of the Soviet Union, another point was made through the courts in Lawrence v Texas, when the Supreme Court struck down sodomy law in 2003. Today I’m disturbed to see that seems like no big deal to people. There was a time when sodomites were considered weirdos - now even the regular guy is saying ‘they’re just people too!’ What I shame, I think, because what they’re engaging in is IMO, deviant sexual behavior. Sex is very simply for the purpose of procreation; not for people of the same sex to be stimulating those organs. The union between a man and a woman can’t be recreated between two people of the same sex, even if one of them has a sex change, or between a man and a horse, or a woman and a dog. But that seems to be where we’re headed. Oh, and not to mention - fully sanctioning incest.

Captain Ed mentioned back in November that the Lawrence V. Texas decision would open a can of worms; “that polygamy, prostitution, and adult incest could be justified under such reasoning, and that although the law in question in Lawrence was indeed foolish and unwise, it did not violate the Constitution.” (CQ, May 2, 2007)

The Court used the equal-protection argument but it didn’t decide the case on that premise. This would have left the door open to the possibility that a state could outlaw both homosexual and heterosexual sodomy…thereby avoiding an equal protection challenge.

Instead, resorting to the mystical and elusive “right of privacy” going back to Griswold v. Connecticut and Roe v. Wade, the Court issued a decision that, at least in respect of private conduct, had a much wider reach than if it had used an equal protection analysis. Declining to establish an explicit right of sodomy, the same right it had rejected 17 years ago in Bowers v. Hardwick, the Court declared that any intimate relationship or behavior between consenting adults in private falls into the protected zone of privacy that the Court had created out of thin air in Griswold.

This, as a general rule, should counsel against attempts by the state, or a court, to define the meaning of the relationship or to set its boundaries absent injury to a person or abuse of an institution the law protects. It suffices for us to acknowledge that adults may choose to enter upon this relationship in the confines of their homes and their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons. When sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring. The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice.

Complementing and supporting its declaration of an absolute right to private consensual behavior, the Court also rejected Bowers’s reliance on the traditional Western condemnation of sodomy as a basis for anti-sodomy laws. While moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is not a trivial concern, said the Court,

[t]hese considerations do not answer the question before us…. The issue is whether the majority may use the power of the state to enforce these views on the whole society through operation of the criminal law. ‘Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code.’

So there you have it. The Judeo-Christian morality of Western and Christian civilization, which goes back millenia, and which as recently as 1986 was still treated as a legitimizing basis of our laws, has now been officially stripped of any authoritative role in our society as it pertains to personal and sexual conduct. The only authoritative principle is the right of consenting adults in private to do whatever they like. (View From the Right, June 27, 2003)

Jeff Jacoby’s article at the Boston Globe is mentioned in this post at CQ, which points out that we’re opening the floodgates to other types of deviant behavior such as adult incest.

View from the Right had it completely correct back in 2003:

Thus the unelected judges of the Supreme Court have taken the central credo of modern liberalism–do what you will, so long as it’s consensual–and made it the supreme law of the land. They have overturned existing tradition and existing legislation, and replaced them with their own tradition and legislation, from which there is no appeal. The libertarianism of liberalism, and the totalitarianism of liberalism, are part of one phenomenon.

It’s another reason that judicial activism is so frightening; legalizing deviant sexual behaviors as if the whole country believes they should be the norm.

I’m getting increasingly offended every time I see one of these articles; and the gay activists trying to legislate hate crime laws.

X posted at Stop the ACLU

From Tom’s Astronomy Blog. I saw this image at the Chicago Tribune this morning, but there was no direct link to it, and I can’t find it anymore. I’m glad I was able to find it again, it’s such a lovely picture.

In a veil of rainbow hues, we see the 7 sisters, also known as the Pleiades, through Nasa’s Spitzer Space Telescope. Read more about the image at the Spitzer website.

As Tom’s Astronomy Blog mentions…

It’s easy to forget that light comes in many forms, our eyes see just a little bit of what is really there…

Yes, often times there is more in front of us than can be seen by the naked eye.

In New Scientist, the British Magazine, Patrick Moore was interviewed in 1999. He left Greenpeace in 1986, when they established a pension plan, he said.

Q. How has the environmental movement got it so wrong?

A: The environmental movement abandoned science and logic somewhere in the mid-1980s, just as mainstream society was adopting all of the more reasonable items on the environmental agenda. This was because many environmentalists couldn’t make the transition from confrontation to consensus, and could not get out of adversarial politics. This particularly applies to political activists who were using environmental rhetoric to cover up agendas that had more to do with class warfare and anti-corporation than they did with the actual science of the environment. To stay in an adversarial role, those people had to adopt ever more extreme positions, because all the reasonable ones were being accepted.

Q: But hasn’t environmentalism always been about exposing the establishment?

A: Environmentalism was always anti-establishment, but in the early days of Greenpeace we did not characterize ourselves as left-wing. That happened after the fall of the Berlin Wall, when a whole bunch of left-wing activists, who no longer had any role in the peace, women’s or labour movements, joined us. I would go to the Greenpeace Toronto office and there would be an awful lot of young people wearing army fatigues and red berets in there.

Thanks to Chaotic Synaptic Activity

Huh. The WaPo is talking about the IPCC report, which to me seems very odd. The IPCC report is actually a series of conclusions and recommendations which do not supply any data for scientists to review. In fact, it follows the religious dogma of leftists in their puff pieces on politicians, the war in the Middle East, and issues like global warming: first, decide your conclusion. Next, back all evidence into it that fits, or manufacture evidence that fits, and then throw away *or ignore* the rest. In the religious dogma of the leftist, censorship is paramount. This reminds me of the nazi propaganda of the 30’s.

Which reminds me; before I move on to talk about the environmentalist’s touting the generalizations made in the conclusions that were ‘likely’ in the IPCC report, you should take a look at how Switzerland is killing off its mental patients over at Raven’s. This is another example of how eugenics is incapable of compassion or feeling; and propels and ideology akin to Nazi Germany in the ’30’s. But I see this all as a bigger picture; the Green movement in America, and eugenics is alive and well here in the US killing off our infants and our sick and helpless in a horrible silent holocaust. As much as the leftist communist and socialist organizations will bang on the ’social justice’ drum, they’re not for ‘justice’ at all. Look at the countries who have those ‘utopian’ forms of government; they are rife with corruption, greed and murder. They might have very little crime, but the people have very little freedom. Ok back to the Green wackos and the IPCC report.

Pat Cleary at the Shop Floor does point out that the WaPo suggests at the end of their article that the George Marshall Institute says we should exercise caution about conclusions one might draw from what I would categorize as ‘wondering is not analysis’ in the IPCC report, until we receive the scientific documentation which backs up the conclusions that were just published.

Two important points in Pat’s post at the Shop Floor are:

• The WaPo is now going to make it a policy to mention the funding sources of the groups citing the ’scientific research’.
• And we can look up at Capital.org to see where on the political spectrum 1 being radical environmentalist, and 8 being free market right.

We should probably further make a dilineation and call the 1-8 scale from left to right as Green Environmental Nazis on the 1 scale, and 8-Capitalists for the Disappearing Free Enterprise System.

See her post at Townhall.com We’ve become spoiled and soft, and the environmentalists have too much time on their hands to destroy the hopes and dreams people have for the basic necessities of life. We’ve already seen what environmentalists did with DDT; but that hasn’t stopped them while millions are dying from malaria. They’re trying, as we’ve said so many times before, to restrict human activity for the sake of the environment; even if it kills people.