If you read my book, or heard me rant …

I have often times gone off on how much I hate the computer models the Global Warming morons have used to try to turn our planet into a Communist Utopia. Here’s a nice article on how inaccurate their predictions have been.

These idiots intentionally put their bias into their models and then wonder why they can’t get accurate projections. If you want accurate projections, you need to be seeking truth, not trying to support a theory.

UPDATE!!! Even the proponents admit the increase was 1/4 of projection.

The scientific process requires you to try to disprove the theory … OK, don’t get me started.

Global Warming still on hold?

Just a quick couple things …

Did you know the amount of Arctic ice was up 60% this year over last? That is a huge difference, especially because the Global Warming people were claiming 2013 would see the ice disappear from the Arctic.

Also, how much global warming has there been over the last 100 years? (Assuming the 100 year old stats are accurate enough to compare to the technology we use today – I’m just sayin’) 5 degrees? 10 degrees? 20 degrees? 30 degrees? Think about it, if it was 30 degrees, that would mean that in 1913 Phoenix would have had high temperatures of about 80-85 in the summer. And they would have gotten down near 0 degrees in winter. What kind of idiots could think that?

A blue planet that rains glass?

This story is an example of why I doubt so much I see in astronomy stories these days.

This drives me nuts – these “artist conceptions” are very misleading as to what we can really see. Where are the actual photos from Hubble? I have a feeling to see them we would be totally underwhelmed. Just a few years ago, they still admitted we had no proof of planets outside our solar system (I have no doubt they exist by the way – so don’t think I’m stupid or a planet denier.), but now they have taken some theories people have created about light variations when observing stars and all of the sudden we have “seen” dozens (or probably hundreds by now) of planets in other solar systems. 

They claim to be able to see this (or other “huge” planets) by a 3% reduction in the light from their star we can see from Earth, what are the odds? The Universe (and our galaxy for that matter) is in 3 dimensions, what are the odds that all of these planets they claim to see are on a perfectly flat (in line with our planet) plane that is visible from our vantage point? Just Wondering.

And another thing … I’d like to be able to read the science behind how they claim the planet is raining glass. Basically this whole thing is based on their claim that the hubble telescope has determined that a planet exists and it appears to be blue. How does that tell us what the atmosphere is, how fast it’s rotating on its axis (assuming it is), what the temperature is, or a whole host of other things? Every few years I read about the latest findings on the planets in our own solar system. You might be surprised at how much what we “know” about our own planetary neighbors changes every few years. 

Fun to think about, but I’m sorry, I question its value.

This one has seemed very questionable to me…

Are we alone in the universe? I would have to say – no. I also would have to say that I believe we will never have proof.

Over the last couple years, scientists have taken to saying that they have “found” planets in other solar systems. Then they quickly started saying that they found planets that are likely to be habitable. They are telling us how big these planets are, what they are made of, etc. If you watch some of the cool science show they tell us all about what planets in other solar systems are likely to have water or life. I sorry, but I think the evidence is there.

Read the latest story that says there are probably 4.5 billion habitable planets in our galaxy alone and see if you can find the important part that makes me doubt all of these stories.

Did you see it? “Kepler spots alien planets by flagging the tiny brightness dips caused when the planets transit, or cross the face of, their stars from the instrument’s perspective.”

You see, what they are doing is watching stars and looking for them to get slightly less bright, assuming that it means a planet is going in front of it.

Look at this article bragging about the Kepler telescope. Artists concepts of the planets. They always give us awesome looking pieces of art to make us feel like it’s a really cool discovery, but all they are are artists renderings.  The pictures from the telescope would be literally underwhelming. I first learned about this a few years ago on some show on the Discovery Channel, and really all you see is little pixelated blobs that occasionally dim a little.

So how accurate is this? Think about what needs to happen for us to be able to see such things.

First, the planet has to be large enough to block a significant enough amount of light to be seen from over 25 TRILLION miles away (About the estimated distance of Alpha Centauri – the closest star to our solar system).

Look at this story – this picture is taken through a telescope at our sun which is only 93 million miles away (or 268,000 times closer) and that tiny dot is Mercury. If the picture was taken from 25 trillion miles away to you think we could see it?

Yes, Mercury is small. How about a bigger planet like Venus? Look at these pictures. Venus is almost a large as Earth.  Again, from 25 Trillion miles away, would they block enough light for us to see it?

To me, that is enough to kill the idea, but what about this … What is the shape of the universe? We don’t even know that, but what we do know is that it’s not flat. There are literally an INFINITE number of planes the planets could be on be on. (Ever heard of pi?) What are the odds that they are precisely on a perfect plane for us to see a planet pass in front of the star from Earth? (Not even all of the planets in our solar system are on the same plane.) And the odds grow worse as the distance increases – do the math.

I honestly don’t see how they can tell us they have definitive evidence of other planets. I believe they are there, but I just don’t agree that this is good science. Don’t tell me that your theories are true and that I’m a red-neck “denier” if I don’t worship at the feet of your theory – or you’ll be just like the Darwin or Al Gore worshipers.