Welcome to what may be one of my shortest entries but a worthwhile one nevertheless.

It is quite difficult these days to flip through the channels on TV, watch the news, or listen to people talking at work without hearing the latest catch phrase “the fact of the matter is.”

A couple things about this need to be pointed out starting with how incredibly overused this is. We do not all need to copy someone else’s phrase. Secondly, this is merely a permutation of the original prepositional phrase of “As a matter of fact” which was used until that phrase got old.

When you hear someone use this phrase, listen really closely to what comes next or the true noun-verb sentence. You will notice the very next part of the sentence has very little to do with any facts at all but the individual’s opinion. Obscuring the line of an opinion with provable facts is nothing new especially in politics. However by using this phrase, the speaker might as well tell the audience they do not know what a fact truly is or they are about to lie to their faces. Again, a politician lying to our faces is nothing new. The rest of us need to lead by example and watch our own tongues.

Why should we be careful of our linguistic choices? Our kids are listening. It is hard enough to grow up in a society where opinions and assumptions are passed off as if they are proven fact. No reason to make it harder for the children to determine who the liars are.

• 0 comments »

Are the tools used to gather the data set up right? So far 84% of them are not.

If the data is unreliable, that means what is fed into the equations will result in incorrect numbers. But are the equations correct? There are some who would say the equations are off.

With inaccurate data and suspect equations, what good are computer models of projected weather patterns when those models can’t agree with recorded data used to test the validity of the model?

Part of global warming requires the oceans of the Earth to be warming up. What happens when the data shows they are not?

Is there information found in scientific journals that throw this global warming panic upside down? Yes, there are many of them covering how CO2 has little to no effect, how the primary climate change sources are the sun first then volcanic activity both above water and in the oceans.

Are these scientists silent in their stances or are they lining up to sign on in opposition to the claims? The latter is true.

Are the Polar Regions really warming up? Or do we need to focus on the bigger picture and not just a time frame in our short lives?

Has the last ten years really been that warm? Warming stopped in 1998 and when the data is corrected, the warmest year on record is back in the 1930’s. The past year does not make a trend but the totality of the data is compelling.

Remember the poor dying populations of polar bears? That has been debunked as a false statement or selective calculations at best.

Now what about the CO2? I stand corrected it is technically a greenhouse gas. However, the data and logic point the primary culprit to be the sun. What impact do humans have on CO2 emissions according to the data?

The answer to the last question can be summarized. “Greenhouse” gases account for between 1-2% of the atmosphere with the vast majority of it being water vapor. The small portion that is CO2 comes predominantly from nature. What impact do humans have on the greenhouse effect? The entire human race on this planet accounts for ¼ of 1 percent of the greenhouse effect.

How much of that minute portion is produced by the USA? Since China and India out produces us in not only manufacturing but definitely in their quantity of people, the USA lags behind quite far.

So can the EPA solve it all at the behest of attorney generals and Presidential candidates? A gnat has a better chance of killing an elephant by kicking it in the toenail than anything we can do. Legislation can do nothing to stop the sun and the Earth. The climate changes, deal with it. To think we are so important as to trump the entire complex and not fully understood cycles on earth and in the solar system is utter folly.

To begin to think a highly complex of global weather climate and the variety of causes and effects along with solar impact can be addressed in 30 second ad spots begs of a strong need for some to be committed to a psychiatric wing in a hospital. Or as proposed by John Coleman, the founder of the Weather Channel, it is high time to sue these quacks and hucksters for fraud.

Perhaps we can submit a suggestion to the lawyers, politicians, actors, actresses and TV station owners. They can help control CO2 emissions by holding their breath. Heaven knows the USA and the world would be better off with all that hot air.

• 0 comments »

These are strange times when passions flare about topics and real science is soundly ignored by talking heads. One cannot help but wonder if the dumbing down of our public schools and especially the butchering of the science curriculum has aided any in an acceptance of warped concepts.

The topic of global warming has Al Gore taking out a $300 million ad campaign to convince people he is right. Ted Turner has declared we need to act quickly or become cannibals. According to the UN, global warming is responsible for the tragedy in Darfur and will lead to more. It doesn’t only impact humans but global warming causes cats to breed too quickly. Oh the humanity of it all, we should join Cate Blanchett in drinking our own urine to save the planet!! I think I felt an acorn fall from a tree and hit me in the head. The sky is falling!! The sky is falling!! We have to join Sheryl Crow in only using one square of toilet paper per bathroom visit!

What causes all this? Burning fossil fuels, using plastic bags, light-bulbs, earthworms eating, cows farting and even Halloween! All this makes massive quantities of CO2 that is going to cook us to death!! What is the best response? Let’s get the lawyers involved to sue the EPA in Supreme Court to fix it all! The sky is falling!!! The Federal government can fix it like they can fix everything! All hail the omnipotent federal government!!

Okay, I have to stop that before I puke. Lawyers, politicians, actors, actresses and TV station owners yelling at the top of their lungs are nothing new. Let us count up how many of those career paths are considered honest and trustworthy. Ready, go…stop. What did you get? Let me guess, the answer is zero. This entire subject is the domain of science not politics, the courts, or entertainment. When you get down to the science, the debates flare up without any consensus. If any consensus exists, it is focusing on how off base the dishonest career people are.

Is there global warming or is it cooling? The debate goes on. There is even some talking about a pending Ice Age caused by the sun. Is there climate change? Of course, change is constant. Do we have enough data to make any kind of conclusions? The answer to this is turning into a big fat NO.

To be continued...

• 0 comments »

No matter what position and awards Professor Weinberg holds, the burden falls upon him to correct the errant journalist. To not correct the journalist is merely getting time to air his opinion or bias. To be fair to him, most of his answers are worded more carefully and respectfully than the questions posed to him. However, his stand for the field of physics waned as he gave into the questioning of the journalist.

Where is the glaring flaw in the article by Ms. Azpurua? It was labeled “Physics.” The article had very little to do with the field of Physics. No matter if the Higgs boson particle is or is not found it will have no impact at all scientifically on the origins of the universe. How so?

I shall repeat the definition of the most abused term. “A scientific theory or law represents a hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests.” Experimental tests require observation. The entire scientific method starts with observation. No one was there to observe and record the start of the universe. Hence there can never be a “grand theory or final theory” regarding origins of the universe, our solar system or life on Earth. They are merely unproven hypotheses or models that can never be proven or tested.

To answer Ms. Azpurua’s question of “As we come closer to developing an ultimate theory of the universe, how will this impact religion?” we turn to the topic being discussed.

The discussion was never about Physics. This discussion was purely about Philosophy. How will “an ultimate theory of the universe” impact religion? It will add a new religion to follow. This isn’t science.

Shame on Ms. Azpurua for trying to pass this article off as a newsworthy Physics article, it is a disgrace.

Shame on Professor Weinberg for not correcting this errant journalist, he should be defending the field of science and Physics not promoting a bias.

Shame on the editor of Newsweek for even allowing this schlock to be published, the editor should better check their sources and facts.

• 0 comments »

A person can gauge the reliability of a journalist by their grasp of subject material and usage of the English language. After all, they do put their journalistic pieces either in print or film depending on their chosen medium.

Very good measures of how reliable or trustworthy a scientist is in any field minimally are how well they can stick to and maintain basic scientific terms. These basic terms are taught to everyone throughout the world in the Elementary grades often around 4-6^th grade and sometimes as early as 1^st grade. These terms are observation, hypothesis, experiment, data, conclusion, model, theory, validated, falsified, and law. All these are well defined here.

The primary most intentionally or unintentionally misused term is the scientific theory. From the above website it is defined as: “A scientific theory or law represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests.” A journalist can get a pass on botching up the definition due to improper training or research but it should never get past the editor. However, there is absolutely no excuse for a scientist in any field to distort the meaning. If they do, discard their statements as their bias has superseded their science.

In an article by Ana Elena Azpurua of Newsweek titled In Search of the God Particle, both the journalist and the scientist Professor Steven Weinberg come up lacking on the most crucial of terminology tests. So yes, I’m effectively calling them both out on this category.

First up and the most scathing criticism belongs to the journalist. Had the article rotated around the experiment regarding the attempt to find the “elusive particle called the Higgs boson” it would have been fine. But instead Ms. Azpurua makes a poor attempt at doing an illuminating interview regarding science and can barely veil her vitriol to any religion. This can be easily deduced from her chosen questions and some of her opening lines.

Some examples are:

• “The goal is to find signs of an elusive particle called the Higgs boson—also known as the "God particle" because it might ultimately lead to a grand theory of the universe.”
• “As we come closer to developing an ultimate theory of the universe, how will this impact religion?”
• “At some point will it be possible to find proof that God or the Ultimate Designer does not exist?”

• 0 comments »

One of the primary Pet Peeves I have are individuals who place their opinions and inferences over facts and what others have said either bluntly or with measured words. First, it smacks of total arrogance and is quite disturbing to think if individuals of that sort end up in positions of decision making power.

On one blog that I frequented quite a bit, one such individual existed where everyone else (98% of the bloggers) were wrong and only she was right no matter the topic or how distorted she twisted it. Normally, you would dismiss such actions as another Internet troll but when they couple it with indignation and proclamations of being the truly civilized person, yah just want to pop that oversized ego.

So to all of my readers who are like that and that poster if she/ he frequents my site, I wish to inform you of a simple word called humility.

To put it in perspective a person needs to sit back and ponder the following:

According to the US Census Bureau, the world’s population is 6,622,121,434 or 6.6 billion people.

Of this, you might be known to exist by 25,000 people being very generous.

Of those 25,000, you may be graced with 150 people that know you well and care about your opinion.

Most of my numbers are likely on the high side. But even so, let us see how it breaks down.

It would mean 6,622,096,434 people on this planet do not know you exist. Percentage wise, 99.9996% have no idea you live. But a whopping 0.0004% does!!

It also means 6,622,121,284 do not give a rats butt what you say. Percentage wise, to 99.999998% only know you as some schmuck on the planet adding to the CO₂ count in the air. That makes a tremendous 0.000002% that actually desire to hear your opinion.

But that isn’t the best news of all to one with such a big ego, more people who will never know you are being born every minute of every day and your percentages are shrinking!!!

So I would suggest a good serving of humble pie and please stick to the observable facts.

Now to those who are my readers and acknowledge this in their lives, just keep this entry handy to give to that ultra stuck up person in your life when you feel their ego needs to be popped. :D

• 0 comments »

What am I talking about? I’m talking about how so many people in so many walks of life commit the same cardinal error and ASSUME. It is by far my greatest pet peeve. For those of you who are uncertain of what it means, the basic definition used in this article is “to take for granted or without proof; suppose; postulate; posit.”

Why do I detest it the most?

First, I’ve been the victim of people making decisions affecting my life based on what they believed to be true or assumed. Second, when a person assumes, they are far more likely to be wrong or nowhere close to the truth than they are to be correct.

Here is the list of ways assuming has impacted my life:

1. I have a disability. However, many will assume I am an invalid and should depend on the state. This includes family members, HR departments, and a litany of others. It is quite insulting.
2. I am a stay-at-home dad. So of course, many will assume that I am either lazy, have nothing to do with my time, or have no marketable skills.
3. I home school my daughter. Naturally, that means she has no concept of social skills. That is such a common assumption that there is this sign for sale.
4. I like to experiment with recipes and foreign foods. When you mention a new mixture or a foreign dish, watch as they assume it will taste bad and contort their face.
5. Curriculum wise –

• Math – Barring T-proofs in Geometry, if you assume a value in math, I can very comfortably bet that you will be wrong. Amazing thing is many people make this mistake in their personal lives. It is called – budgeting on an assumed income.
• Science – When you assume something in science, it must be kept to an absolute minimum number of assumptions or you will absolutely be far off track.
• History – We’ve neeeeever had one culture or ethnicity assume they are better than another have we? England, Spain, France, Germany, Japan, USA, USSR, Al Qaeda ..nah, never. Let us not forget the assumptions made when you head off to college, get your first job, or what sport someone thinks you should be good at, etc.

6. Let us not forget the assumptions made when you head off to college, get your first job, or what sport someone thinks you should be good at, etc.

I think you get the picture. The problem is this is now so prevalent because the last few generations have been taught that it is fine to do so.

• 0 comments »

Tailgating the Not Fun Version

For those who are not familiar with the term, tailgating can mean two potential things. First it could be referring to a party that takes place at a sporting event. That is a tailgate party. I have no problems with that and it isn’t a Pet Peeve of mine.

However, the other version of tailgating does bother me quite a bit especially when my daughter is in the backseat of the car. Tailgating of this sort is dangerous. I’m not saying this because I’m a slow driver. I normally push the limits of what speed you can drive without getting a ticket.

The majority of those who tailgate are either drivers of SUV’s, pick-up trucks, mini-vans, or inattentive drivers yakking on the cell phone. The key thing these individuals are forgetting is we live in Wisconsin. We have silly things like snow, ice and white tailed deer. The white-tailed deer are the most unpredictable potential hazard as there are numerous roads that cut through farmlands and forests where the deer roam. They can bolt out of the side of the road at anytime.

I’ve had that happen to me and the result is shown below. Now for all of these larger vehicle drivers, they are also forgetting another detail. They are driving larger vehicles. The bigger the vehicle the further it needs to stop due to its mass.

When you meet a deer or anything else that dents the front of your car, your air bag deploys in a puff of powder that further obstructs your view so your natural instinct is to bring your car to a halt. When you have a pick-up truck traveling at 60 mph less than 20 ft from your tail pipe, you are certainly going to be experience far greater complications.

But that alone isn’t quite enough to hit my Pet Peeve list. It is the other observation my wife and I have made and labeled the 3T. The drivers who tailgate usually do so and end up turning off shortly after coming up on your rear. So all they had to do is wait 2 more seconds at a safe following distance to do the exact same thing. But no, they have to Tailgate To Turn. So they have gone beyond the “Are You Thinking?” category and landed in my Pet Peeves.

-MatureKid

• 0 comments »

The title says it all. I want provable facts not opinions. However, we’ve spent a few generations ‘teaching’ students to value their opinions over facts by using a semantic based argument. What do I mean? “Based on these premises, we can infer” blah, blah, blah. That works in logic and what if scenarios but is best suited for the collegiate level.

I wrote an entire paper for college using that type of logic. So I know full well how a person can take a pile of BS, dig up resources that agree to quote, and turn it in as if it is a wonderful document. Boiled down though, BS is still BS no matter how pretty you make it. It is entertainment at best but far from factually accurate.

The devil is in the details of what the word infer, inference and premise mean. Infer is “to derive by reasoning; conclude or judge from premises or evidence” or to put it bluntly “to guess; speculate; surmise.” Inference is “the reasoning involved in drawing a conclusion or making a logical judgment on the basis of circumstantial evidence and prior conclusions rather than on the basis of direct observation.” Premise means “a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn.”

I’ll refer you back to my prior post on assuming. To restate a phrase I’ve come to dislike enough to make it a pet peeve of mine, based on opinions we take for granted, we can make another opinion. Opinion+opinion=Opinion. Opinion+fact=Opinion.

It is the height of arrogance or deception to conclude an opinion should override facts. What more is it to insert one’s opinion into policy and education and make it be what others should believe because that opinion is worded to sound like a fact?

-MatureKid

• 0 comments »

Pet Peeves

Similar to the “Are You Thinking?” category, this is a section where I will just flat out harpoon particular conducts and statements individuals and some groups make. However, the difference is these are quite a bit more personal as I’m directly in the crosshairs and suffered from some of these. What I write here though will not be whining or griping or any kind of “oh woe is me” but just some flat out wondering out loud why people do what they do and say what they say.

I’ll give you the first three topics that will be gracing this website as a taste of what is to come.

1) Assumptions – Boy does this topic get my goat. Why? Because making assumptions usually leads to horrid consequences as the assumptions are usually wrong.

2) Inferring – Similar to assumptions but slightly different. This is inserting your opinion into what someone else has read or stated. Like assumptions, this usually leads to disaster.

3) Tailgating – Especially when the other driver is on the cell phone. I like meeting people. I really do. I just don’t want their metal entwined with mine when I have to stop suddenly.

• 0 comments »