Thursday, March 7, 2013
I just wanted to let people know that I am now writing for Purple State Politics under the moniker Veritaquesitor, which comes from the Latin for "truth seeker"--since I'm not so arrogant as to declare that everything I say is so correct as to call myself "Truth Speaker" or something like that. ;-)
I may post here from time-to-time, but it will mainly become a personal blog.
I hope you'll visit Purple State Politics, read, think and discuss. Here's the site:
Sunday, January 1, 2012
Monday, August 15, 2011
In short, I believe that anthropogenic global warming is bunk, pure and simple. While we may be experiencing some global warming, it is probably not caused by human activity, and it is not enough to destroy the world, civilization or humankind. Any global warming that we may be experiencing is probably just natural climatic variablity and beyond the control or influence of human beings. I am not a skeptic, I am a denier.
Consider the information found at the following links and decide for yourself, as I have.
Facts about Global Warming:
Regarding the so-called "consensus":
More about "consensus science" from Michael Crichton's talk 'Aliens Cause Global Warming':
I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.
Let's be clear: The work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period. . . .
Recorded debate motioning that global warming is not a crisis:
(Yes, I am a fan of Michael Crichton and his extraordinary intellectual and logical gifts, and storytelling talent.)
Sunday, June 26, 2011
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Get the details here, and then write to your Senators and Representatives and tell them about it:
Setting the record straight on America’s oil
Deliberately Making Americans Poorer: Obama’s energy policies hit hardest below the poverty belt
The Big Energy Lie
The Big Energy Lie, Revisited: The truth behind all that 'The U.S. has only 2% of the world's oil reserves' malarkey.
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
"Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth:Lest the Lord see it, and it displease him, and he turn away his wrath from him." (Proverbs 24:17-18)
"Now, I speak unto you concerning your families—if men will smite you, or your families, once, and ye bear it patiently and revile not against them, neither seek revenge, ye shall be rewarded;" (Doctrine and Covenants 98:23, see verses 23-48 for details)
Thursday, April 7, 2011
I was reading a little article on Big Think about how awesome Shakespeare is and thought that it might be interesting to explore this topic. The writer of the article refers to Shakespeare as "God", or "a god", citing the fact that The Bard created much of our language and has had such a tremendous influence that he can have no equal. In a word, Shakespeare is a demigod, which is defined as "a person who is highly honored or revered", but the connotation carries an air of awe and divinity. Such a person executes his or her craft with such talent, creativity and perfection that we feel a bit of the Divine when we experience their work, and we are tempted to worship them.