Steph, Ayesha Curry play Santa on Ellen DeGeneres special

first_imgWatching the reactions of children when they’re in the presence of Stephen Curry is absolutely priceless.Their eyes become saucers. Their mouths fly open. A gaze of utter disbelief comes over their faces.It happened again recently when the Golden State Warriors star and his wife, Ayesha, visited the East Oakland Boxing Association (EOBA) for a segment on the NBC holiday special, “Ellen’s Greatest Night of Giveaways.”“Is this real?!” a kid is heard asking. “Are you really Steph …last_img read more

Was the Nobel Denied to a Creationist?

first_imgRick Weiss, writing in Smithsonian Magazine (Dec. 2003), analyzes Raymond Damadian’s “prize fight” over the 2003 Nobel for Physiology and Medicine (see 11/10/2003 and 10/10/2003 entries).  He suggests the possibility that one of the main reasons was Damadian’s views on creation.  A Nobel spokesman denies it, but Weiss wonders:But it is difficult not to at least consider another explanation: that scientists on the assembly or in other positions of influence could not abide Damadian�s staunch support for “creationist science.”  Damadian is a firm believer in a literal translation of the Bible: he has no doubt that the earth was created by God during a six-day stretch about 6,000 years ago.  Damadian has also served as a technical adviser to the Institute for Creation Research, which rejects the standard model of evolution. …     …. It is tempting to speculate that some assembly members might have weighed the additional legitimacy a Nobel imprimatur would have conferred upon groups whose views are so diametrically opposed to so much of modern science.The views of creationists are not diametrically opposed to so much of modern science, for crying out loud.  They are diametrically opposed to the totalitarian elitism of the Darwin Party.  Like so many great creation scientists before him, Damadian performed exemplary scientific research that has had phenomenal, world-wide impact for good.  That is what a prize should go for, not for allegiance to any “standard” mythology.    We cannot know exactly how much this factor weighed in on the Nobel committee’s secret deliberations, but it would not be surprising, given the Darwin Party’s history of smear tactics going back to Huxley.  Rather than have open debate about the evidence, they present themselves as the noble couriers of science and everyone who disagrees with them as crackpots.  The Smithsonian, whose museum houses Damadian’s first working MRI scanner, could have done a better job defending his case, but at least this article is one of the few that have dared to suggest the creation factor.  Notice how Weiss talked about the “Nobel imprimatur,” and portrays the committee as if it were a council of bishops declaring the official interpretation of their scripture, The Origin of Species.  What’s next, the secular inquisition?(Visited 11 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0last_img read more

Big Science as a Leftist Front

first_img(Visited 31 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0 Take any scientific subject that overlaps with politics, and you will find the leading journals and mainstream science news organizations presenting leftist positions, often lambasting conservatives.Ideally, science is supposed to be apolitical and neutral.  But what is “science,” if not the sum total of human beings who call themselves scientists and their intellectual products?  Lizards and orangutans don’t have science.  As human beings, scientists are prone to political biases like the rest of people.  Surely there are conservatives in the ranks of scientists, but their front organizations – lobby organizations, journals and journalists, which we will call “big science” – lean predominant left, as this sample of articles shows.  It’s evident not only in the positions they take, but in the subjects they focus on – and those they ignore.   (Big science’s uniform and hostile opposition to creationism and intelligent design is so obvious, it needs no documentation in this entry.)“Gay” rights:  It might seem strange that big science—given its love affair with Darwinism that depends on reproductive success—would take any position on so-called “gay rights,” but, predictably it always advocates the leftist, politically-correct view.  Science Magazine was in an uproar that the African nation of Uganda would pass a law outlawing certain forms of homosexual behavior, calling it an “antigay law” with “draconian” meaures.  Uganda’s President Museveni signed the bill partly because of alleged scientific findings showing homosexuality is behavioral, not genetic; he was also concerned that “mercenaries” were recruiting young people into gay activities.  Live Science called the law “homophobic,” also referring disparagingly to Russia’s president Putin who has attempted to reduce gay propaganda in his country.  Then, surprisingly, writer Michael Quinn [University College London] dredged up the 200-year-old views of utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham to advance “sexual liberty” – without drawing any boundaries around what that might entail (polygamy? sexual slavery? pedophilia?).  Jeremy Bentham was no scientist.  Why were his views, and his alone, presented by this science news organization?  Why no views from the Family Research Council, for instance, which has done  extensive research on policy, law and societal ramifications of sex and marriage?The BBC News took on the challenge of trying to explain the “evolutionary puzzle of homosexuality” without making any politically incorrect statements, doing its best to portray it as a genetic condition preserved by natural selection, apparently unaware (or unconcerned) that a Darwinian explanation removes any possibility of responsibility or redemption from one’s biological predestination.  Where would they draw the line on similar explanations for other deviant sexual practices?The point is not to debate the laws of other countries, and certainly not to rationalize cruelty against any individuals or groups.  It is to ask why big science inserted itself into the moral affairs of sovereign nations, focusing on this one issue with bold headlines, presenting the leftist position that anything less than full normalization of homosexuality represents bigotry and intolerance.  Not a single conservative is represented in a favorable light.  No concern is expressed about homosexual interest groups recruiting young people away from traditional family roles—something arguably of concern to the body politic and sustainability of a population (e.g., forbidding counseling for those who want to change, adding homosexual praise in textbooks, bringing in homosexual activists to praise their lifestyle to captive audiences of children without letting parents opt out).  Is this issue alone the one needing big science’s big guns?  What about the treatment of women in Muslim countries – honor killings and stonings?  What about persecution of Christians, which is at record highs?  Is the repression of individual rights in Cuba, Iran or North Korea less deserving of attention?Global warming:  Big science is on a campaign to suppress opposition to the “consensus” view that global warming is man-caused and demands drastic mitigation efforts.  In Nature, for instance, Simon L. Lewis advocates squelching debate in the UK, claiming that “Scientist-versus-activist debates mislead the public.”  Scientists should only debate other scientists, he says, believing scientists would only disagree about details, not the consensus.  In jest, he said that one climate skeptic in particular should debate a climate advocate like the head of Greenpeace.  Ironically, the co-founder of Greenpeace—a PhD climate skeptic—presented on Fox News’s Sean Hannity show Feb. 27th a rapid-fire list of scientific reasons the consensus is wrong.  The leftist direction of his organization, he said, was the reason he left Greenpeace years ago.  (He also said he knows he would be persecuted for presenting his evidence in liberal venues.).  The journals don’t give him the time of day, but give hero treatment to the likes of James Hansen, who has become a global warming activist since leaving NASA to lead a “new climate and advocacy shop at Columbia University.”  Science Magazine let Hansen freely tell about his activist efforts without opposition, showing a big photo of him smiling.  Live Science gave ample space for IPCC scientist Michael Mann, another warming advocate, to criticize as “myths” the views of leading conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer, who had stated on Fox News this week that “There is no such thing as settled science” and that he was not convinced from the science that the current warming trend is man-caused.  Mann mocked him, saying “His commentary is a veritable laundry list of shopworn talking points, so predictable now in climate change denialist lore that one can make a drinking game out of it.”  (Several conservatives have complained that the left’s derisive term “denialist” is an attempt to associate warming skeptics with Holocaust deniers.)  PhysOrg not only touted the consensus of UK and US scientists that “climate change is real,” but took a swipe at conservatives, calling them “industry-friendly” as if to impugn their motives.  PNAS was a fraction more conciliatory, suggesting that people should be allowed to “agree to disagree” on policy—provided policy to combat global warming moves forward.And yet doubts about warming or humans’ guilt for it continues to surface.  Last month in Nature, Jeff Tollefson took on the embarrassing fact that temperature has leveled off for the past 16 years.  He called “the biggest mystery in climate science today” the observation that earth is “cooler than predicted.”  Nature also pointed out that permafrost in Alaska is expanding, “probably because of vegetation springing up nearby,” forcing the editors to postpone the visible effects of warming till past our lifetimes: “the team calculates that, within 70 years, rising air temperatures will win out and cause this permafrost to thaw.”  Live Science admitted that geoengineering proposals to mitigate global warming won’t work, and could actually make things worse.  Science Daily hypothesized that climate change in the Bronze Age led to the collapse of megacities; if so, that was not due to man-caused carbon emissions in 2300 BC.  Factors not included in climate models keep accumulating, too.  Another Science Daily article reported that aerosol particles in pine forests are larger and more abundant than thought, seeming to appear out of thin air, and could have uncalculated effects on climate.  And yet dubious claims get reported, like Science Daily‘s suggestion that climate change caused the civil war in Syria.  “Climate change” (previously “global warming”) has become a default cause for numerous unrelated effects.  Conservatives do not doubt that the climate changes.  They just disagree that man has caused the latest warming trend, that warming is necessarily bad, and that scientists are the prophets they picture themselves to be.Life and Death:  As Wesley Smith details in his new book and video The War on Humans, leftist big science has an obsession with death.  Viewing mankind as a plague on the planet, some science professors and evolutionary philosophers would be only too happy to see massive die-off of Homo sapiens—an odd position for a Darwinist to take, considering that survival of the fittest is the only moral good in the Darwinian world view.  Yet some of these same leftist scientists who support abortion, euthanasia, and tinkering with human embryos get all teary-eyed over the pain of fish.  “Fish have feelings, too,” Nature wrote, advocating the abolition of a practice that might make zebrafish suffer when killed for research.  The editors wrote, “Our obligation to keep the suffering of laboratory animals to a minimum — both in life and in death — does not apply only to mammals.”  Where is that tender sensitivity when it comes to abortion?  Medical Xpress reported with clinical coolness that “One year after legalization” there have been “6,676 abortions in Uruguay” (one of the last Latin American countries to legalize the killing of unborn babies).  It has been conservatives alone, not leftists, who have uncovered the horrors of abortion clinics and tried to stop partial-birth abortion that is inches from infanticide.  To its credit, Science Daily described filicide (the killing of one’s own children) as a “heinous crime” both “horrifying” and “tragic” – but at the end of the article, sought for “biological underpinnings” of the practice, as if to justify it on evolutionary grounds or blame it on serotonin levels.Socialism:  President Obama, the most left-leaning President in American history, usually gets a pass or praise in big science.  This week, Medical Xpress reported (without critique) that “Obamacare enrollment reaches 4 million” as if to celebrate the number, even though it falls far short of expectations.  “Advocacy groups are reporting a whirlwind of activity this month as they try to enroll as many uninsured Americans as possible before open enrollment ends on March 31,” the article states supportively, only mentioning in the last sentence some of the problems conservatives have been warning about: “The administration hasn’t reported the number of marketplace enrollees who were previously uninsured,” it hides in the last lines.  “And it hasn’t said how many have paid their first month’s premium—a prerequisite for health insurance coverage.”  That’s only the tip of an iceberg of problems, lies, scandals, botched dealings and collateral damage to real people that Fox News has been detailing continuously (while holding frequent debates between supporters and opponents of Obamacare).  But if you are a conservative in the mainstream science media, watch out, if you can: Medical Xpress also gave voice to severe criticisms of the late conservative UK prime minister Margaret Thatcher, blaming her conservative policies for “unnecessary and unjust premature death of many British citizens, together with a substantial and continuing burden of suffering and loss of well-being”–hardly an opinion many Brits would hold of their respected Iron Lady who participated in the end of the Cold War and dissolution of the Soviet Union.  Similar outrage would be hard to find in big science communications against dictators who actually kill and repress the human rights of their people: Iran, North Korea, Cuba, China, and the lot.With all this background, two writers in The Conversation can’t seem to figure out “Why do some people not care about science?”  Maybe it’s not that they don’t care about real science.  Maybe they are just disgusted with the non-stop leftist ideology being presented in the name of science.The evidence above speaks for itself.  Big science has been captured by leftists, just as have big media, big labor, big law, and big academia.  The Saul Alinsky tactics of the left appear in big science like they do elsewhere: demonize the opposition, don’t let them get a hearing, and keep telling big lies.  Individual scientists are often very decent people, just as are many decent journalists, laborers, lawyers and teachers, but their voices are suppressed by management.  Leftists are the darling talking heads for the mainstream media.  Conservatives, usually, are happy to debate.  They are glad to give both sides a decent hearing.  Here at CEH, we let the evolutionists do their best, and we provide the links so that you can check out what we report.  Leftists, though, are selfish ideologues, thinking common people are too stupid to agree with “the scientific consensus” if they were to hear opposing points of view.  Well, what does that tell you about their credibility?  Can you imagine Live Science or the BBC returning the favor and linking to our material or anything like it?  Watch out for any institution that suppresses opposition and doesn’t want you to think.  That’s totalitarian.last_img read more

South Africa pushes for Grand Inga hydropower project go-ahead

first_img5 November 2014The Grand Inga Hydropower project may prove to be South Africa’s solution to the current and future energy challenges if the South African legislature ratifies the treaty on the energy scheme with the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).The treaty, signed by South Africa and the DRC in October this year, provides the framework for the facilitation of power generation from the Grand Inga project and its delivery to the border between the DRC and Zambia.On Tuesday, 5 November, South African parliament’s portfolio committee on energy made a recommendation that the legislature make an official decision on the hydropower project to be built on the Inga dams along the Congo River. The multi- phase hydro power station has the potential to generate approximately 40 000MW, sufficient to power half of Africa.Inga 3The ratification of the treaty will pave the way for the development of Inga 3, which will provide 2 500 MW of electricity to South Africa and contribute to regional integration, energy security and economic growth in an environmentally sustainable manner.Two existing dams, Inga 1 and 2, have been in operation since 1972 and 1982 respectively, together generating nearly 1 800 MW. The next phase of the Grand Inga project, Inga 3, is expected to cost in the region of US$12-billion and produce around 4 800 MW of electricity.Subsequent phases, adding up to an eventual total capacity of 40 000 MW, will allow countries in southern Africa, north-east Africa and parts of west Africa to benefit from production at the site. It is envisaged that a new transmission line from the DRC to South Africa will be constructed after Inga 3. The transmission line will most probably go through Zambia and Zimbabwe and Botswana.Security concernsBriefing the committee, South African ambassador to the DRC, Ntshikiwane Mashimbye, said the only concern at the moment is the security and financial situation in the DRC. However, in order for the committee to effectively deal with this, an oversight visit to the DRC will suffice. “This is a project that separates us as a generation that wants to change a continent to a different one,’ he said.Adding, Mashimbye said the project is not about generating electricity for the DRC and its neighbours, but about the industrialisation of Africa. “All conflicts will never come to an end until we have the requisite energy and industrialise the continent,’ said Mashimbye.Deputy Minister for Energy Thembisile Majola said South Africa is playing an active role to end the current political conflicts in the DRC. “We have lost lives in the DRC. We continue to be present to try and secure that country because we know that the day when the giant rises the continent will also rise,’ she said.Inga has potential to supply clean energySouth Africa’s cabinet approved the ratification of the treaty on the Grand Inga hydropower project between South Africa and the DRC on 22 August 2014. Announcing the decision on the day, Minister in the Presidency for Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation, Jeff Radebe, said the Inga project has the potential to supply clean and affordable imported hydroelectric power to meet the needs of the DRC, South Africa and surrounding countries.“The project holds the potential to fast-track SADC development, alleviate energy poverty, stimulate economic growth and facilitate infrastructure development.“This represents one of the most ambitious projects ever undertaken on the African continent, and one which will long be a resounding symbol of the rise of Africa and her people,” he said.SAinfo reporterlast_img read more

Reports of pests moving into Ohio fields

first_imgShare Facebook Twitter Google + LinkedIn Pinterest As the newly planted corn and soybean fields begin to emerge, pests become a major concern for farmers. In this week’s DuPont Pioneer Field Report, Account Manager Trent Brisby tells Ty Higgins that he is getting reports of pests damaging the young crops in Northwest Ohio. He has some tips on what to look for and what to do to protect fields this season and beyond.last_img

Efficiency in the Desert

first_imgTo meet the requirements of Environments for Living (EFL), a voluntary energy-efficiency standard, third-party verifiers perform additional blower-door tests on one out of every seven new Pulte homes. Among the services provided by the EFL program is a framework for utility bill guarantees. On all of its Las Vegas homes, Pulte provides a guarantee that covers energy for space heating and cooling. Energy used for cooking,domestic hot water use, and plug loads are excluded from the guarantee. Since it is based on kilowatt-hours of electricity and therms of gas, not dollars spent, the guarantee is independent of energy cost fluctuations.Low heating and cooling loadsWith such careful attention to air sealing, Azure Canyon homes require much smaller HVAC systems than comparable houses. Explaining the method used to calculate heating and cooling loads, Broad said, “John Spargo of Comfort Engineering does our Manual J calculations, and that requires a lot of nuance and judgment. He narrows the range on the infiltration rate and applies more specific inputs on the heat gain calculations than you would typically find. He’s playing the edge of all of those inputs. Compared to a typical HVAC contractor, his calculations are running at about 80% of Manual J.”Still room for improvementAzure Canyon homes have HERS Index ratings of 61 or 62, but they could be even lower. “Our HERS scores are based on a worst-case orientation,” explained Broad. Like most production builders, Pulte makes no effort to orient its homes according to passive solar principles. As a result, roof overhangs aren’t optimized for summer shading, and window orientation is random.Broad describes the windows that Pulte uses as “your basic low-e window.” He has been trying — so far unsuccessfully — to convince his company to upgrade to SunCoat Max glazing from Cardinal, a type of glazing with improved warm-edge spacers and a lower heat-gain coefficient.Each home gets an energy monitor Energy efficiency and sustainability take center stage at two new Las Vegas developments built by Pulte Homes, one of the nation’s largest homebuilders.Pulte’s Azure Canyon development is located in southwest Las Vegas, where the growing edge of suburbia meets the shrinking desert. Every Azure Canyon home meets the “Green Built” standards established by the local homebuilders’ association. Ranging in size from 1,788, to 2,088 square feet, the homes sell for $230,000 to $260,000.To minimize energy losses, Pulte locates all the homes’ ducts within the conditioned space; some ducts are run through 20-in. open-web floor trusses, while others are located in the conditioned attic. All duct seams are sealed with mastic, and the tightness of every completed duct system is verified with a Duct Blaster test.Defining the envelopePulte uses its own workers rather than subcontractors for electrical, plumbing, and HVAC work, and trains all workers in the importance of maintaining air-barrier integrity. “A lot of our plans have various bump-outs, some of which are just decoration,” explained Robert Broad, director of product design for Pulte Nevada. “When we define the thermal envelope, we often simplify it — some of the bump-outs are outside of the envelope. For every cantilever or a bay area, everybody needs to understand the boundary that we are sealing to. Sometimes we actually spray-paint an indication of the location of the envelope.”Training is an ongoing process. “We do pre-insulation behind tubs and showers,” said Broad. “But sometimes we still have to fix insulation that has been moved by the plumber. We’re trying to get the guys to recognize that if they tear out some insulation to do the plumbing, they have to replace it appropriately.”Every home gets a blower-door testAt every Azure Canyon house, Pulte workers verify the integrity of the air barrier by performing a blower-door test. “We run the blower door and go around with a smoke pencil and look where we could do better,” said Broad. “We walk around and say, ‘What else are we missing?’ ” Another Pulte development is Villa Trieste, a planned community that will eventually include 185 homes measuring between 1,487 and 1,960 square feet. All Villa Trieste homes, like those at Azure Canyon, are enrolled in the Environments For Living program. The homes are equipped with efficient appliances: 15 SEER air conditioners, 92% AFUE gas furnaces, and Rinnai on-demand gas water heater.Each Villa Trieste home is equipped with a whole-house energy monitor, or “energy dashboard,” mounted on a wall near the kitchen. These EcoConcierge meters from In2 Networks display real-time energy use and water-use data. “The dashboard is Internet-connected. If I’m at work, I can adjust the AC from my office,” said Walter Cuculic, Pulte’s director of strategic marketing. “The thought is that by paying attention to the energy dashboard,homeowners will be able to reduce their energy use by 5 or 10%.”Solar power on every roofcenter_img Every home at Villa Trieste will include a 1.76-kilowatt photovoltaic (PV) array using SunPower SunTile roof-integrated PV modules. Pulte’s practice of ignoring orientation complicated the task of identifying the best south-facing roof slopes for the PV arrays. “It was a little bit challenging,” admits Cuculic. “For some of the lots, we had to restrict the possible elevations — for example, we may tell a customer that you can’t have a ‘Spanish’ elevation on this lot.”The cost of installing PV arrays at Villa Trieste is being subsidized by several grants from the local utility and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). A portion of the $7 million DOE grant — equivalent to $37,000 per home — will be used to study whether the homes’ energy dashboards help homeowners lower their energy use.If Pulte is successful in its goal of obtaining LEED Platinum certification for every home at Villa Trieste, the community will become the largest collection of LEED Platinum homes in the country. Since the first rated homes at Villa Trieste obtained impressive HERS Index scores of 43 or 44, the neighborhood is off to an excellent start.More InformationSee a video interview with a Pulte sales Associate explaining howshe uses a _Quality Construction Room_ to sell the hidden features of green construction.last_img read more

Indian batsmen will always struggle against the swinging ball: Ricky Ponting

first_imgFormer Australia captain Ricky Ponting said that Indian batsmen will struggle to deal with the moving ball during their tour of Australia later in the year.Indian batsmen struggled to deal with the swing under overcast conditions in England and failed to chase down small totals on two occasions at Edgbaston and the Rose Bowl. Barring, Virat Kohli, none of the Indian batsmen could score over 300 runs in the five-match Test series, that India lost 1-4.And Ponting feels that the moment the ball starts swinging in the air, the Indian batsmen will meet the same fate as they did in England.”If the ball does swing around a lot or seam around a lot then I think India will find it difficult in Australia. I think any time we saw India struggle through the England series was when the ball moved. As soon as the ball started to move in the air, or seam, the Indian batsmen will always struggle,” Ponting told have not won a Test series in Australia till now and lost their last two series Down Under 0-2 and 0-4 in 2014-15 and 2011-12 respectively.Ponting however, said that most of the teams struggle away from home and Australia is no different.”It’s no different to when Australia go to the subcontinent and the ball spins from day one. We always struggle with that as well,” Ponting said.”It’s a 22-yard strip and you’ve got to find a way to get the job done. Most teams find it difficult (to win in Australia) and that’s the way Test cricket has been for a long time. I think South Africa are the team over the last 10 or 15 years that have been able to do it more than anyone else,” he added.advertisementIndia will next tour Australia for three T20Is, four Tests and three ODIs towards the end of this year and early next year.Kohli’s men will start the tour with a T20I on November 21 at the Gabba in Brisbane. India’s last match will be a ODI at the MCG on January 18.last_img read more