My Beauty Best Teacher

From Slate:

....It is no secret that the ranks of scientists and engineers in the United States include dismal numbers of Hispanics and African-Americans, but few have remarked about another significantly underrepresented group: Republicans.


No, this is not the punch line of a joke. A Pew Research Center Poll from July 2009 showed that only around 6 percent of U.S. scientists are Republicans; 55 percent are Democrats, 32 percent are independent, and the rest "don't know" their affiliation....

...Yet, partisan politics aside, why should it matter that there are so few Republican scientists? After all, it's the scientific facts that matter, and facts aren't blue or red....

...Or could it be that disagreements over climate change are essentially political—and that science is just carried along for the ride? For 20 years, evidence about global warming has been directly and explicitly linked to a set of policy responses demanding international governance regimes, large-scale social engineering, and the redistribution of wealth. These are the sort of things that most Democrats welcome, and most Republicans hate. No wonder the Republicans are suspicious of the science. Think about it: The results of climate science, delivered by scientists who are overwhelmingly Democratic, are used over a period of decades to advance a political agenda that happens to align precisely with the ideological preferences of Democrats. Coincidence—or causation? Now this would be a good case for Mythbusters.

During the Bush administration, Democrats discovered that they could score political points by accusing Bush of being anti-science. In the process, they seem to have convinced themselves that they are the keepers of the Enlightenment spirit, and that those who disagree with them on issues like climate change are fundamentally irrational. Meanwhile, many Republicans have come to believe that mainstream science is corrupted by ideology and amounts to no more than politics by another name. Attracted to fringe scientists like the small and vocal group of climate skeptics, Republicans appear to be alienated from a mainstream scientific community that by and large doesn't share their political beliefs. The climate debacle is only the most conspicuous example of these debilitating tendencies, which play out in issues as diverse as nuclear waste disposal, protection of endangered species, and regulation of pharmaceuticals.

How would a more politically diverse scientific community improve this situation? First, it could foster greater confidence among Republican politicians about the legitimacy of mainstream science. Second, it would cultivate more informed, creative, and challenging debates about the policy implications of scientific knowledge. This could help keep difficult problems like climate change from getting prematurely straitjacketed by ideology. A more politically diverse scientific community would, overall, support a healthier relationship between science and politics....

This relationship is an interesting one, and is explained not by the fact that all Republicans are idiots and unscientific, but because Republicans are all busy actually doing things for society and not just getting government contracts to write papers that no one reads. Scientists are largely useless bureaucrats of a specialized sort today, performing little to no function for society but rather drawing off wealth from working engineers, businessman, and inventors who send their hard-earned tax money to government-run institutions who employ professional scientists to formulate government responses to government-related problems, and so it is no wonder they are all Democrats.

If you can produce a good, improve a product, design a new system, or contribute research that people actually will pay to get their hands on, then you aren't going to be a scientist, you're going to become a businessman, inventor, engineer, or something like that and give yourself a different label than "professional government controlled scientists".

"Are scientists becoming the new priests?" asks Debra J. Saunders in a recent editorial for the San Francisco Chronicle, and the conclusion that she comes to is "Yes":

...university science departments are havens of harmony, with scientists as priest-like figures to whose greater wisdom the public should defer. With scientists on this pedestal, who needs religion?

Saunders is on the right track here- increasingly, scientists are filling a role in our society once reserved from priests- they tell fortunes based on reading omens in the weather, they tell the future (inaccurately) based on models they create, they punish unbelievers and reward those agree with them without questioning, they build themselves great temples on universities designed to add prestige to their profession, they advise people regarding the proper sacrifices to make in order to appease the angered science gods, they peddle myths and run secret societies, and they hold to a worldview that does not allow any other challengers.

It should be no surprise that scientists are filling this role- for thousands of years, humans have turned to priests, shamans, fortune-tellers, soothsayers, magicians, witch-doctors, and religious types of all sorts. These sorts prey on those who are looking for hope, looking for direction, looking for someone to tell them the right way to live their own lives, and these scientists fill that role- many have, after all, devoted their lives to killing the Christian God and subverting his people, and now they rush into that vacuum with their own creation myths, sacred beliefs, sacrifices, and class of keepers of the eternal flame of truth.

In my post Is Al Gore the Re-incarnation of the Xhosa Prophetess Nongqawuse? I touched on this idea:

Alarmingly, the prophet that Gore most resembles may turn out to be Nongqawuse, who led her people to ruin in the mid-19th century. Nongqawuse was a teenager and a member of the Xhosa tribe in South Africa. One day in April or May of 1856, she went down to the river to fetch water. When she returned, she said that she had encountered the spirits of three of her ancestors who told her that her people must destroy their crops and kill their cattle. In return, the sun would rise red on February 18, 1857, and the Xhosa ancestors would sweep the British settlers from the land and bring them fresh, healthier cattle. (Some of the Xhosa cattle had been suffering from a lung ailment, which may or may not have been brought by the British settlers’ cattle.)

Astonishingly, the Xhosa chieftain, Sarhili, agreed to do exactly as this young girl urged. Over the next year, a frenzy occurred in which it is estimated that between 300,000 and 400,000 cattle were killed and crops destroyed. Historians sometimes call it the “Great Cattle Killing.”

But on February 18, 1857, the sun rose as usual. It was not red. And the Xhosa ancestors did not show. But the Xhosa people had destroyed their livelihood. In the resulting famine, the population of the area dropped from 105,000 to less than 27,000. Cannibalism was reported. Following Nongqawuse’s advice was a calamity of staggering proportions for the Xhosa people.

Al Gore and scientists who peddle his myths in the hopes of winning lucrative government grants are damaging our nation, slowing down our economic growth, making us more dependent on foreign powers, destroying jobs and the tax money that those jobs could be generating for schools and roads and important projects, and holding humanity back from progressing to a bright future. One can only hope that our educated population here in America is more sophisticated and civilized than the Xhosa tribe and begins to fight back and resist the peddlers of these destructive green myths.

After the recent global warming scandals whereby government workers faked and falsified research in order to get more money, the 'consensus' on global warming is now being called into question. So what does Congress do? Hold a phony sham of a Congressional committee hearing and invite four out of five 'believers' to testify in front of Congress how people are harassing them now that their cover has been blown and people realize what hacks they are.

Democrats are not holding a hearing to investigate the truth behind the matter. They are not having witnesses come forward to testify about anything that could to increases in my life, liberty, and property. Democrats are not trying to uphold the rule of law, achieve more transparency in climate change research, or contributing new information to the debate. They are simply engaging in typical sham fraud and giving a forum for fraudulent scientists to get on record with their opinions about the myth of man made global warming. As long as Democrats run Congress, you can expect thousands of conferences like this every day in Washington DC, all paid for by your tax money.

The Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming is an utter joke- this is the actual government official meeting notice.

Next Hearing 5/20: Climate Science in the Political Arena
Select Committee hearing to examine attacks against climate scientists:
The scientists involved in the stolen climate emails from the University of East Anglia were exonerated by the British House of Commons and an international panel of climate experts, led by Lord Oxburgh. Even after these investigations found that nothing in the emails undercut the scientific evidence of climate change, attacks against scientists continue. Reports of harassment, death threats and legal challenges have created a hostile environment, making it challenging for actual data and scientific analyses to reach the public and policymakers.

On Thursday, May 20th, the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming will hold a hearing to examine the intersection between climate science and the political process. This hearing, entitled “Climate Science in the Political Arena,” will feature prominent climate scientists, some of whom have been the target of these attacks. This hearing will explore scientists’ ability to present data and information that can guide global warming solutions in a sometimes fierce political landscape.
WHAT: Climate Science in the Political Arena
WHEN: Thursday May 20, 2010, 9:00 AM
WHERE: 1334 Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC and online
WITNESS LIST:Dr. Ralph Cicerone, President of the National Academy of Sciences and Chair of the National Research CouncilDr. Mario Molina, Nobel Laureate in Chemistry and Professor, University of California at San Diego Dr. Stephen Schneider, Professor, Stanford University Dr. Ben Santer, Research Scientist, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Dr. William Happer, Professor, Princeton University

According to the Huffington Post, the first four people are all true believers (who feel that there can be no arguing or even suggesting that global warming is happening, that it is man made, that it is bad, and that only massive government control over every aspect of our lives can save us) and only William Happer is a non-believer ("the sole GOP witness arguing against the global warming consensus"). Yeah, that's fair and balanced- a four to one ratio to testify about this issue.

Every Democrat in Congress needs to be thrown out of office sooner rather than later if this is representative of how they spend their days. Every single one of them.

From the International Herald Tribune: The era of Obama is here, and many scientists in bureaucratic agencies around the country are exuberant- staff members throughout the government's scientific agencies held inaugural parties on Tuesday, and many reported being teary-eyed with joy. Frank Press, a former president of the National Academy of Sciences and former science adviser to President Jimmy Carter said "It's not just getting money- it's (Obama's) recognition of what science can do..." Carter's former advisor probably commented off the record that money and results don't' even matter- the only thing that matters is Obama recognition that scientists can do anything that God did, and giving them the power to do so.

The article goes on to accuse the two-time democratically elected President of the United States of interfering in the work and policies of government bureaucrats. 20 Nobel laureates issued a statement claiming that the Bush administration had treasonously attempted to achieve its policy goals on the environment, health, biomedical research and nuclear weaponry, and they are outraged that they didn't get to set those goals and control our society using their obviously superior intellect.

Last month the inspector general of the Interior Department, a cabinet department under the control of President Bush, determined that Bush's policies often interfered with his personal agenda of massively expanding the power of government over our society in order to protect 'species in danger of extinction.'

Obama transition officials said that the new administration would also loosen the oversight that the Bush administration imposed over federal scientific agencies, letting them play God with science without any elected officials meddling in their taxpayer funded business. Scientists are most excited about the prospect of expanding stem cell research now that they don't have to deal with foolish notions such as religion and morality.

William Hubbard, an associate FDA commissioner who retired in 2005, said that top Bush administration officials were so opposed to taking away our freedom and liberties that they callously ignored the attempts by lawyers, lobbyists, politically-connected businesses, scientists, and bureaucrats to put in place new rules to govern us serfs and control our behavior.

Meanwhile, there is a new poll out that says that the majority of people in the United States are no longer buying the myth of man-made global warming. Most scientists' have all reached consensus on this issue, deciding that the world is warming, that the warming is continual and exponential, that it is man-made, and that the only way to prevent a catastrophe is for the government to control every aspect of our society. In spite of this, the idiots of the United States, by that I mean thousands and thousands of real people with brains, no longer buy this load of bull, and feel that the Earth must warm and cool periodically, regardless of human behavior, and government action is not needed on this issue.

The breakdown is 41% are Believers, 44% are smart, and 16% are other- it's surprising that 2/3 people in this nation don't buy into Global Warming, and yet we just anointed a Head Shaman who is going to radically change our nations policies to confront it. I'll never understand voters, or whoever put Obama in charge of our once great nation.

Mr. Robbo the PE Geek is an excellent blogger and incredible teacher. Located in remote Australia, he has these students using heart monitors and high definition cameras to understand their sport. (Read his It's Now Possible blog post from today. This PE teacher taught me about QR Codes. A neat person too.)

We can talk about getting kids interested in science, however, science is interested IN them because it can unlock higher performance in the things they love. Taking science to the ballfield is only the beginning

For those of you who saw my Daily Education & Technology News For Schools this morning know that I'm having a bit of a traipse into Citizen Science.

Citizen Science is Becoming "Legitimate" Science
Authentic citizen scientist research work is becoming very useful to high level scientists. When I sat down with Dr. Geoffrey "Jess" Parker from the Smithsonian last year and the Microsoft Innovative Educator Forum in South Africa, he said that it is pretty easy to use statistical analysis to filter out "noise" of readings that have been taken in err.

Joshua Faulk helps students Treeband in south Africa at St. Cyprian's. Photo by Vicki Davis.

Dr. Parker is the scientist who discovered that trees in Maryland are growing faster than predicted. He and fellow scientist Joshua Faulk and the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center have partnered with Taking IT Global and Microsoft to create Shout Learning and the Smithsonian Tree Banding project where your students can participate.

Here are some important reasons you should have citizen science as part of your curriculum:

• It introduces students to the scientific method and data collection responsibilities.
  
• It introduces students to live science in action and makes it real. They can see questions before they have been answered and understand how science moves forward.
  
• It adds meaning to their work. No longer answering the same questions answered hundreds of years a go, they are answering questions that help our world NOW! You and your classroom MAKE A Difference. (The principle of glocalization talked about in Thomas Friedman's work - Think globally act locally.)
  
• As in the case of Mr. Robbo's lesson plan, they can use science to improve their performance which can show benefits on the field and also in their life as they realize science is in them, around them, everywhere.
  
• It is project based learning in action and can lead to other cross curricular activities including math, writing reflections, technology (using spreadsheets) and more.

http://scienceforcitizens.net/

My sense of humor is a bit off, just to warn you, but here are some of what I think are my funniest posts of 2011, filled with a sense of wit and sarcasm and fun. Enjoy.

BREAKING: Barack Obama Time Travels from January to Scold Barack Obama of February of his Lack of Civility in Wisconsin Budget Battle

BREAKING FAKE NEWS: In an unusual move for a sitting President of the United States, Democratic President Barack Obama time traveled from January of 2011 to February 2011 in order to to scold Democratic President Barack Obama for his political finger-pointing and lack of civility and honesty regarding the public discourse over the budget situation in Wisconsin.

January Obama reportedly said to February Obama "(We should all) strive to be better in our private lives – to be better friends and neighbors, co-workers and parents... more civility in our public discourse... only a more civil and honest public discourse can help us face up to our challenges as a nation."

In reply, February Obama said to January Obama "Some of what I’ve heard coming out of Wisconsin, where you’re just making it harder for public employees to collectively bargain generally, seems like more of an assault on unions..." and then DNC's Organizing for America arm -- the organization and people who were behind Obama's 2008 campaign -- began playing an active role in organizing protests...

(the rest of the post is a long hypothetical conversation between time-traveling Obama's which quotes from him at different times to reveal his shameless hypocrisy in an amusing way)

EXCLUSIVE: Obama Prepared to Demand France Return to 1917 Borders

Following up on his recent calls for Israel to return to its 1967 border, Obama is now calling on France to return to its 1917 border and return the provinces of Alsace and Lorraine back to Germany. For the first time ever, here is President Barack Obama's upcoming speech on Peace in the Middle Europe:...

(the fake speech is quite long- I took the speech that Obama gave at the AIPAC policy conference in May of 2011 and simply edited it a bit- but here is my favorite part of it)

...I said that the United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent borders for Germany and France based on the 1917 lines with mutually agreed swaps. In doing so, I give to Germany things which they do not own, and then demand that France trade for those things, as if I have the authority or ability to do any of this. (applause)...

(for similar fun, see John Lillpop's post "Obama to Call for Return of U.S. –Mexico Borders to 1843?")

Obama's Belief in 'Bad Luck' Part of What Religion Exactly?

"We had reversed the recession, avoided a depression, gotten the economy moving again," Obama told a crowd in Decorah, Iowa. "But over the last six months we've had a run of bad luck."

If bad luck is the reason that our nation has struggled lately, I wondered to myself just what exactly our President and Commander-in-Chief was doing to combat this recent run of bad luck.

Never in my knowledge has any other President had to battle 'bad luck' before- a google search of past Presidents' speeches did not turn up any results of past Presidents, whether they were Republican like George W Bush or Ronald Reagan or Democrats like Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter, ever blaming 'bad luck' for the problems that the United States faced. Perhaps it was because these past Presidents were religious people, who did not believe in paganism and 'luck' so much as the divine will of God and his plan...

(the rest of the post is a serious attempt by me to investigate the role that karma and luck play in the President of the United States worldview and understand what sorts of policies he will put in place to battle bad karma and bad luck- it's a joke because he's a joke)

Scientists Filling Roles Priests Once Filled?

(I'll be honest, this post was simply an excuse to bring up an earlier funny post I wrote called Is Al Gore the Re-incarnation of the Xhosa Prophetess Nongqawuse?, but it remains relevant still)

...increasingly, scientists are filling a role in our society once reserved from priests- they tell fortunes based on reading omens in the weather, they tell the future (inaccurately) based on models they create, they punish unbelievers and reward those agree with them without questioning, they build themselves great temples on universities designed to add prestige to their profession, they advise people regarding the proper sacrifices to make in order to appease the angered science gods, they peddle myths and run secret societies, and they hold to a worldview that does not allow any other challengers.

It should be no surprise that scientists are filling this role- for thousands of years, humans have turned to priests, shamans, fortune-tellers, soothsayers, magicians, witch-doctors, and religious types of all sorts. These sorts prey on those who are looking for hope, looking for direction, looking for someone to tell them the right way to live their own lives, and these scientists fill that role- many have, after all, devoted their lives to killing the Christian God and subverting his people, and now they rush into that vacuum with their own creation myths, sacred beliefs, sacrifices, and class of keepers of the eternal flame of truth....

Hello John Holdren, Science Czar, believer in the Unified Theory of Left-Wing Causes, and Tyrant

As the United States of America continues its descent under President Obama and his New Democrat Party into a third-world dictatorship, I still find myself unfamiliar with the overlords who now control my behavior and distribute to me gifts and favors... So today let's get to know a little bit better our Science Czar, John Holdren...

...Holdren is a believer in the so-called Unified Theory of Left-Wing Causes. This theory is that all left wing causes- including global warming, global cooling, overpopulation, endangered species, poverty, diversity, and many others- can all be solved by a benevolent world dictatorship of the enlightened elite that will force others to live their lives differently and will redistribute their property as they see fit...

(Here I am simply amused by the phrase Unified Theory of Left-Wing Causes, as if this is some sort of pseudo-scientific system out there- check out Powerline's post on this for more)

Chimpanzee Hunting Driving Monkeys to Extinction? Those Damned Dirty Apes!

Scientific American reports that that red colobus monkeys in Uganda's Kibale National Park are being hunted to extinction—by chimpanzees. According to a study published May 9 in the American Journal of Primatology, this is the first documented case of a nonhuman primate significantly overhunting another primate species...

...Scientific American is wrong- this is not the first time that those damned dirty apes have tried to kill other primates. Several years ago I got my hands on an account of apes hunting man- I know it is sketchy at best and is not a complete account, but I am going to pass it on to you now to think about.... here is the other account that I have read of ape hunting man...

(you'll have to read the post to get the joke- you'll chuckle, I am positive)

Funny Rick Synder Story about Bureaucrats

Yesterday I got a chance to sit down and talk for a bit with Michigan Governor Rick Synder and he told me a pretty funny story. I'm going to try my best to rely it to you...

(it's a good story- I can't improve it in any way by summarizing it for you, so just read the post)

Hopefully these all brought you a chuckle to start off the year, and you all will be sure to regularly read A Conservative Teacher for insight, humor, and a dose of reality.

Earth Hour is a global event organized by World Wide Fund for Nature, and asks households and businesses to turn off their lights and appliances one hour to raise awareness towards the need to take action on climate change. Covered in the media and supported by the UN, it was said that turning off your lights during this hour would be a 'vote' in favor of the agenda laid out by the UN's Climate Change Conference.

Personally, I voted in favor of advancement of human prosperity by using energy to cook my food, celebrating technological progress of our society by watching TV while playing a video game on my computer, and was proud to have all my lights on, shining away in the darkness of the world. Thank you Competitive Enterprise Institute for suggesting this Human Achievement Hour. I wasn't the only one that celebrated Earth Hour this way- apparently the great prophet of global warming himself, Al Gore, didn't turn off his lights- see this post for yet another example of the hypocrisy of the left.

But this post isn't really about Earth Hour- it's more about personally how Earth Hour affected me. I'm going to share with you a personal story of my life the past week, when I made the choice to stand up to the Green Thugs who worship the Green God here at my school- please pass this story on, because it is a good example of what is to come in our nation.

It all started last week with an innocent email that was sent out by an administrator, telling our entire staff all about Earth Hour and encouraging people to "support the fight against global warming by turning off your lights for one hour tomorrow night- together , we can create change in our world and bring peace to all."

Don't be surprised- staff get emails like this all time- even here, in a rural community that votes strongly Republican, a public school financed by taxpayer dollars uses its technology to send frequent emails from superiors encouraging staff to support the fight against man-made evil global warming. As I was working on preparing my lessons for the next day, I received this 'important' email from my boss, and honestly, a look of annoyance flashed across my face.

In a fit of frustration, I replied to this email- pecking out a reply between hours- and sent it to the whole staff. I felt that if it was okay to get emails about Earth Hour, it was okay to respond to these emails- and I did. I sent the following message "As you can see from the attached graphs, there is no correlation between keeping your lights on and the Earth warming. But, because you asked, I'll turn off some lights to lower my energy bill."

One graph showed a correlation between the heat coming off the sun and the rise in temperatures, and the other showed the cyclical rise and fall of global temperatures. I don't think it was unfair or wrong of me to send out that email- I have data supporting my point, and the tone of the email was light and friendly. After sending the email, I was a bit apprehensive, but I honestly expected some light-hearted replies to it- but what I got in reply stunned me.

Our staff isn't a far-left staff- our teachers are not outright communists- and most people would call our staff 'balanced' or 'moderate.' But question the religion of global warming, question the beliefs of liberals, and be prepared for a firestorm- now I know. My inbox was instantly filled with emails blasting me, stunning me with their viciousness and vileness.

Other teachers and administrators sent me emails that said that my arguments were "sad defeatist" arguments, that I was giving up on the world and was unwilling to fight to make the world a better place. I was called "unintelligent," "uneducated," "immature," "backward," and "crazy." Like most liberals do, rather than debate my ideas and thoughts and data, they went straight for name-calling.

Even worse, many began to question my teaching ability. For the record, my students have the highest scores in the district on our common assessments and high-stakes tests, and I have frequently been recognized by students, other teachers, and administrators for being an outstanding teacher. But question the global warming religion once, and I get emails saying such things as "I am concerned that you could be convincing our students of the same fallacies" and "I seriously question what you are teaching our students."

Even today, days later, I am still getting emails ripping into me. Perhaps it is because I have been replying to these attacks on my character and teaching ability- other teachers in the building have encouraged me to roll over and just take the blows- they suggest I just hide in my classroom like they do. They also criticize me- they said I brought it on myself when when U opened my mouth in the first place and that in the future I should just just say "Heil" along with the rest of the staff. But I refuse to- because that's not what our founding fathers did- they fought when threatened- fought with their ideas- and I aim to do the same. I aim to be bad- I am to misbehave.

The most frequent argument that has been advanced to me by those who follow the Green Religion (the earth is warming, the warming is bad, the warming is caused by man, that government must control man, and that man must sacrifice to government) is that there is a consensus on the issue- that "most of today's highly educated scientists agree with global warming," and that my ideas "are like saying that the Earth is flat."

My reply to this was to question the proposition that most scientists feel this way- there are plenty who don't buy into some or all of the global warming litany. Further, I pointed out that the system now financially encourages scientists to espouse at least some of the global warming agenda- that there is now money subsidizing scientists who promote this, and no money for those who oppose it, so to rely on 'numbers' alone is not a good measure of the quality of the argument.

The reply for those on the left, those green worshippers, has been to mock me and call me more names. My arguments to them are childish. One email claims that "I suppose next you are going to tell me that the government was responsible for hurricane Katrina and 911?"- as if me not believing that turning my lights off will save the globe is the same thing as other crackpot theories.

Look- I don't put up with disrespect- I don't in my classroom, I don't from fellow teachers. So I told them to quit calling me names and quit disrespecting my views- liberals claim to be open-minded, they claim to be accepting, they claim to be morally superior. The reply- "I'm not calling you sad, stupid, ignorant, or unintelligent- I'm calling your views that." I am what I believe- are liberals not the same? Or are liberals something other than their views? I pondered these questions, sitting at my desk, typing out emails defending myself and my position, for some time.

Eventually, I just begin to hit delete. Logic, reasoning, and calm calculations, supported by data and clear thinking, had run up against religion. Global Warming (or climate change) is a religion, not a policy position. It's too bad that this religion is allowed to flourish in schools, that education can have study classes on the tenets of global warming, that we erect alters to worship global warming (a 'green garden' was built at our school last year), and that there are places to sacrifice to the green gods all over schools (the recycling symbol is omnipresent, as our recycling boxes and bins). It's too bad that schools are against religions such as Christianity and Judaism, as public schools continue their war on "he who can not be named in schools" (God).

Perhaps what was most upsetting to me about this incident was the reaction I got from my wife when I told her all this stuff. Excited about fighting the good battle, energized from my attempts to reason, I told my wife what I had done. Her face got pale, and she became fearful and scared- she was frightened that in this world, this new country of change, that I would be fired for believing the wrong things, for having the wrong views on global warming. My wife was scared that schools have become so much like a 3rd world dictatorship that saying the wrong view could mean the loss of my job. And the scary thing, she is right.

By taking this stand, by sending out one little email questioning global warming, by defending myself from insults and questions as to my ability, I have put myself personally in danger of being fired. I may now be let go from my job for questioning global warming. That is scary. Things are changing in this world, hope is dimming, and life is not fair anymore- and my small attempt to fight back at this, to push the darkness back by lighting the light of logic and reasoning on Earth Hour, may very well be the end of me as a teacher.

• The Network for Citizen Science Projects & Resources | Science for Citizens

  Another citizen science network. There are a ton of citizen science resources available on this website including a project to help track and save American Robins. You can also add projects here and blog. Another great place for projects. This website lets one rate projects as well. There are many games on this website. This is a definite goldmine for science teachers!

  tags: science citizenscientist flatclassroom education

• CitSci.org - Project List

  One can also list projects on this website. It might be interesting for students to create their own projects.

  tags: education citizenscientist science

• CitSci.org - Home

  A citizen science project monitoring nature and contribute to colelctive biological understanding. Every science classroom should find an appropriate citizen science project to do in their classrooms on an ongoing basis. Become part of research.

  tags: education science flatclassroom citizenscientist

• For Citizen Scientists - NASA Science

  NASA calls for Citizen scientists to help map Mars and says that citizen scientists "have helped to answer serious scientific questions, provide vital data to the astronomical community, and have discovered thousands of objects including nebulas, supernovas and gamma ray bursts."
  
  It is time to join your classrooms into the citizen scientist movement. How would your students feel about science if they helped discover a star?

  tags: education science flatclassroom citizenscientist edu_trends techintegrator

• H-Net: Humanities and Social Sciences Online

  A website supporting collaborative research at the highest academic levels. Run out of the University of Michigan this looks like a fascinating endeavor where one can network with other researchers.

  tags: education research globalcollaboration flatclassroom professionaldevelopment

• Journey North's Monarch Butterfly Migration Tracking Project

  Join in Journey North's Monarch Butterfly Migration Tracking Project this fall in North America. This is an excellent citizen scientist project.

  tags: education learning butterfly science

• Acceptable Use Policies in Web 2.0 & Mobile Era > Consortium for School Networking

  Acceptable Use policies in a Web 2.0 and Mobile Era: A guide for school districts is one of those things you'll want to read and reference as you make your decision. Please, NEVER just blanket adopt any acceptable use policy. It should be customized for your school and needs.

  tags: education acceptableuse policy

Posted from Diigo. The rest of my favorite links are here.

In SciDev Valerie Corfield writes:

Researchers in developing nations must become 'communicating scientists', sharing their knowledge beyond academia...Scientists must become proactive, and form a network of contacts beyond their own academic brotherhood. And they should recognise the value of science intermediaries, such as science centres and funding agencies' research translation offices...[continue reading]

Last month I wrote an important post called Global Climate Change is Caused by the Sun. That post has received a lot of comments and generated a lot of emails, most of them critical of the post because they didn't feel that I provided enough information to support my points or that I was not a reputable outlet to challenge their faith in climate change. But I want to hammer away at these people and continue to challenge their faith and make people feel more comfortable about the arguments that I made in that post, so I am going to all direct you to an article.

The article is published by the Financial Post and is called Science Getting Settled: New, convincing evidence indicates global warming is caused by cosmic rays and the sun — not humans:

The science is now all-but-settled on global warming, convincing new evidence demonstrates, but Al Gore, the IPCC and other global warming doomsayers won’t be celebrating. The new findings point to cosmic rays and the sun — not human activities — as the dominant controller of climate on Earth.

The research, published with little fanfare this week in the prestigious journal Nature, comes from über-prestigious CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, one of the world’s largest centres for scientific research involving 60 countries and 8,000 scientists at more than 600 universities and national laboratories. CERN is the organization that invented the World Wide Web, that built the multi-billion dollar Large Hadron Collider, and that has now built a pristinely clean stainless steel chamber that precisely recreated the Earth’s atmosphere.

In this chamber, 63 CERN scientists from 17 European and American institutes have done what global warming doomsayers said could never be done — demonstrate that cosmic rays promote the formation of molecules that in Earth’s atmosphere can grow and seed clouds, the cloudier and thus cooler it will be. Because the sun’s magnetic field controls how many cosmic rays reach Earth’s atmosphere (the stronger the sun’s magnetic field, the more it shields Earth from incoming cosmic rays from space), the sun determines the temperature on Earth.

The hypothesis that cosmic rays and the sun hold the key to the global warming debate has been Enemy No. 1 to the global warming establishment ever since it was first proposed by two scientists from the Danish Space Research Institute, at a 1996 scientific conference in the U.K. Within one day, the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Bert Bolin, denounced the theory, saying, “I find the move from this pair scientifically extremely naive and irresponsible.” He then set about discrediting the theory, any journalist that gave the theory credence, and most of all the Danes presenting the theory — they soon found themselves vilified, marginalized and starved of funding, despite their impeccable scientific credentials.

The mobilization to rally the press against the Danes worked brilliantly, with one notable exception. Nigel Calder, a former editor of The New Scientist who attended that 1996 conference, would not be cowed. Himself a physicist, Mr. Calder became convinced of the merits of the argument and a year later, following a lecture he gave at a CERN conference, so too did Jasper Kirkby, a CERN scientist in attendance. Mr. Kirkby then convinced the CERN bureaucracy of the theory’s importance and developed a plan to create a cloud chamber — he called it CLOUD, for “Cosmics Leaving OUtdoor Droplets.”

But Mr. Kirkby made the same tactical error that the Danes had — not realizing how politicized the global warming issue was, he candidly shared his views with the scientific community.

“The theory will probably be able to account for somewhere between a half and the whole of the increase in the Earth’s temperature that we have seen in the last century,” Mr. Kirkby told the scientific press in 1998, explaining that global warming may be part of a natural cycle in the Earth’s temperature.

The global warming establishment sprang into action, pressured the Western governments that control CERN, and almost immediately succeeded in suspending CLOUD. It took Mr. Kirkby almost a decade of negotiation with his superiors, and who knows how many compromises and unspoken commitments, to convince the CERN bureaucracy to allow the project to proceed. And years more to create the cloud chamber and convincingly validate the Danes’ groundbreaking theory.

Yet this spectacular success will be largely unrecognized by the general public for years — this column will be the first that most readers have heard of it — because CERN remains too afraid of offending its government masters to admit its success. Weeks ago, CERN formerly decided to muzzle Mr. Kirby and other members of his team to avoid “the highly political arena of the climate change debate,” telling them “to present the results clearly but not interpret them” and to downplay the results by “mak[ing] clear that cosmic radiation is only one of many parameters.” The CERN study and press release is written in bureaucratese and the version of Mr. Kirkby’s study that appears in the print edition of Nature censored the most eye-popping graph — only those who know where to look in an online supplement will see the striking potency of cosmic rays in creating the conditions for seeding clouds.

CERN, and the Danes, have in all likelihood found the path to the Holy Grail of climate science. But the religion of climate science won’t yet permit a celebration of the find.

Hopefully this article has made you feel more comfortable about accepting the fact that I am right- global climate change is driven largely by the sun, not humans, and thus almost every attempt by the government to control our behaviors and energy and production in the name of 'climate change' is misguided and dangerous and wrong.

UPDATE:  Come on people- now I'm getting emails that 'the Financial Post' isn't reputable enough for you- well how about the Wall Street Journal, because it also came out with an article today talking about the role that cosmic rays play in affecting the climate. Read the article The Other Climate Theory for more.

I'm giving credit to the Volokh Conspiracy for the funniest post of the day:

I thought I'd just mention that the world may end tomorrow. Scientists in Europe are planning to fire up a particle accelerator known as the Large Hadron Collider. A few scientists think there is a small risk that the experiment will create a black hole voracious enough to swallow the huge unit and then the entire Earth. I'm betting it won't happen. If I'm wrong, you can collect tomorrow night.

From the PLOS computational Biology website, "...To be a scientist in a low-income country (LIC)...requires a set of qualities that are necessary to confront the drawbacks that work against the development of science. The failure of many young researchers to mature as professional scientists upon their return to their country from advanced training elsewhere, motivated us to propose these ten rules..."[continue reading]
via Science Blogs

Scientific American reports that:

Red colobus monkeys in Uganda's Kibale National Park are being hunted to extinction—by chimpanzees. According to a study published May 9 in the American Journal of Primatology, this is the first documented case of a nonhuman primate significantly overhunting another primate species....

...The study examined nearly 33 years of primate census data (covering 1975 to 2007) and found that the endangered Ugandan red colobus monkey population dropped 89 percent during that time, mainly as a result of being hunted by common chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes)....

....The decline was furthered by the fact that chimpanzees preyed more on juvenile monkeys which had not grown old enough to reproduce, hurting the population's chance to bounce back.

Meanwhile, the authors found that the number of chimpanzees in the area has risen by 53 percent....

Scientific American is wrong- this is not the first time that those damned dirty apes have tried to kill other primates. Several years ago I got my hands on an account of apes hunting man- I know it is sketchy at best and is not a complete account, but I am going to pass it on to you now to think about.... here is the other account that I have read of ape hunting man...

....Recently several of our astronauts crash-landed in a lake. They were named Dodge, Landon, and Taylor. They used an inflatable raft to reach shore and then set off through the desert, gradually encountering plant life. They find an oasis at the edge of the desert and decide to go swimming, ignoring strange scarecrow-like figures. While they are swimming, their clothes are stolen. Pursuing the thieves, the astronauts find their clothes in shreds and the perpetrators — a group of mute, primitive humans — contentedly raiding a cornfield.

Suddenly, gorillas on horseback charged through the cornfield, brandishing firearms, snares, and nets, which they use to capture whatever humans they can and kill those they cannot. While fleeing, Dodge is killed, Landon is bashed in the head and knocked unconscious, and Taylor is shot in the throat. The gorillas took Taylor to Ape City, where his life is saved by two chimpanzee scientists, animal psychologist Zira and surgeon Galen. Upon awakening, Taylor — now housed in a cage with a girl whom he later calls Nova who was captured on the same hunt — discovers that his throat wound has rendered him temporarily mute.

Taylor discovers that the apes, who can talk, are in control and are divided into a strict caste system: the gorillas as police, military, and hunters; the orangutans as administrators, politicians, and lawyers; and the chimpanzees as intellectuals and scientists. Humans, who cannot talk, are considered feral vermin and are hunted and either killed outright, enslaved for manual labor, or used for scientific experimentation.

Zira and her fiancé, Cornelius, an archaeologist, take an interest in Taylor when he tries to communicate by mouthing words. Taylor attempts to communicate by writing in the dirt, but his writings are hidden by Zira and Cornelius's boss, an orangutan named Dr. Zaius. Eventually, Taylor steals paper from Zira and uses it to write messages to her. Zira and Cornelius become convinced that Taylor is intelligent; but upon learning of this, Zaius orders that Taylor be castrated.

Taylor managed to escape and flees through Ape City. During his flight, he finds himself in a museum, where Dodge's corpse has been stuffed and put on display. Shortly thereafter, Taylor is recaptured by gorillas; finding that his throat has healed, he angrily addresses them, shouting "Take your stinking paws off me, you damn dirty ape!"...

At this point, the account that I have trails off, so I have no idea what happened. But it is clear from this account and from the story in Scientific America that apes and monkeys and chimps represent a clear and present danger to our society, and should be watched in the future very closely. I suggest doing so at your local zoo.

Climate change (global warming) is caused by the sun. This may be a shock to you, but strangely enough, the same sun that causes the earth to grow warmer in the summer and colder in the winter also has long-term variations that cause long-term variations in the global temperature. Oh, I know what you are thinking "Humans are causing global warming by driving SUV's and being evil towards Mother Earth and the solution is to adopt Communism." But the truth of the matter is that humans and our actions are probably one of the smallest variables involved in 'climate change'. That doesn't mean that we can pollute as much as we want, but it does mean that most of what environmentalists say and do and believe isn't right either.

It's pretty simple once you become educated. Here is an article from Dr. Harrison “Jack” Schmitt, former US Senator from New Mexico, a geologist, and a former Apollo Astronaut (read his book Return to the Moon: Exploration, Enterprise, and Energy in the Human Settlement of Space), that was found in the The Science and Environmental Policy Project weekly newsletter:

THE CENTRAL ROLE OF THE SUN IN CLIMATE CHANGE
Policy makers at the head of government in the United States and elsewhere apparently want to believe, and to have others believe, that human use of fossil fuels accelerates global warming. They pursue this quest in order to impose ever greater and clearly unconstitutional control on the economy and personal liberty in the name of a hypothetically omnipotent government. There exists no true concern by the President or Congressional Leadership about the true effects of climate change - only a poorly concealed, ideologically driven attempt to use conjured up threats of catastrophic consequences as a lever to gain authoritarian control of society.

There has been an absolute natural increase in global surface temperature of half a degree Centigrade per 100 years (0.9 degrees Fahrenheit) over the last three and a half centuries. Observational climate data and objective interpretations of those data strongly indicate that nature, not human activity, exerts the primary influence on this current long term warming and on all global climate variations. Human influence through use of fossil fuels has been and remains minor if even detectable. Claims to the contrary only find support in highly questionable climate models that fail repeatedly against the reality of nature. What, then, stimulates historically and geologically observed, sometimes slow and sometimes radical, changes in climate?

The primary alternative hypothesis to human-caused global warming is natural climate change driven by the Sun. Unfortunately, the "human-caused global warming" or “carbon dioxide forcing” hypothesis has become embedded in the minds of otherwise strong teams of observational scientists and their publication outlets. They cannot entertain any other alternative to enhance and amplify variations in the natural heating of the Earth by the Sun - nor can they prove their own hypothesis of human-caused global warming.

As many scientists have documented, the position and orientation of the Earth in its orbit around the sun, and the Sun’s variable influence and activity, determine weather and climate. Seasons vary because of changing solar energy input in annual response to the varying orientation of Earth’s Northern and Southern Hemispheres. Indeed, the Earth’s 23-degree inclination to the rays from the Sun and its annual orbit around that star guarantee large seasonal changes away from the equator. Further, variations in solar radiation received by the Earth correlate with short-term variations in Earth’s weather, based on the slow movement of loops called "Rossby waves" in atmospheric jet streams.

Observations by astronomers over the centuries, as well as studies of tree rings,stalagmite layers, and other pre-historic and geological records, have defined an 11-year sunspot cycle superposed on a number of longer climate cycles. Much modern research documents that the sunspot cycle also correlates with variations in stratospheric winds13 and ozone production, cosmic ray flux, ionospheretroposphere interactions, and the global electrical circuit that exists between the ionosphere and the Earth's surface.

Correlations of records of seasonal changes, solar activity cycles, and local and regional rainfall oscillations all confirm that in some way radiation emanating from the Sun drives changes in weather and climate. Solar interplanetary magnetic fields, whose polarity varies every 22 years or twice the sunspot cycle, may play an additional role as their strength varies directly with increases and decreases in numbers of sunspots.

As a further natural demonstration of the importance of the Sun in determining climate variation, the well-documented solar shielding effects of atmospheric ash and aerosols from volcanic eruptions document the tie between solar irradiance and at least short-term climate swings. Particularly illustrative have been eruptions such as Huaynaputina (1600), Tambora (1815), Krakatoa (1883), and Pinatubo (1991).

More broadly, geological and planetological observations show that major perturbations in climate relate to the position and orientation of the Earth in its orbit around the Sun. For example, as Serbian mathematician Milutin Milankovic pointed out in 1941, as have many others since, initiation of the major ice ages on Earth correlate with a 23,000-year precession cycle, a 41,000-year obliquity cycle, and a 100,000-year eccentricity cycle in the position of the Earth relative to the Sun. Cyclic variations measured in oxygen isotope ratios that correlate with the growth of ice sheets and biogeochemical responses closely reflect the 23,000-year precession cycle. Also, a half-precession cycle appears to be related to the dynamics of the East African Equatorial monsoon. In addition, the 41,000-year obliquity cycle shows strongly in North American marine depositional records.

Climate cycles related to internal solar activity are superposed on long-term orbital cycles. For example, the Medieval Warm Period (800-1300) and the Little Ice Age (1400-1900) correlate, respectively, with very active and very passive periods of recorded sunspot activity. As a fairly recent example of solar influence on climate, the Little Ice Age occurred during a 500-year long sequence of three deep reductions in sunspot frequency. The coldest temperatures came during the last of these minima, a 70- year period of exceptionally few sunspots (the Maunder Minimum). The Medieval Warm Period, (when the Vikings colonized Greenland, glaciers retreated, and farmers could at least survive) also correlates to repeated multi-century long, high sunspot frequency. Since the end of the early 1900s, peak values in sunspot activity rose steadily until 1960, leveling off at higher than normal values until apparently starting to fall about 2000.

The 11-year sunspot cycle repetitions are superposed on a number of long-term cycles of past highs and lows in solar activity. For example, the Gleissberg cycle has imprecisely defined periods of 90±30 years in length. More energetic sunspot activity in the Gleissberg cycle may correlate with temporary decades of warming, such as in the 1930s and 1990s with the reverse being true in the 1810s and 1910s. Analyses of tree rings, lake levels, cave deposits, tree ring variations in cosmic ray-produced isotopes (14C and 10Be), and oxygen isotope ratios record what appear to be other long period solar cycles, specifically, 2400, 1500 years, 200, as well as the Gleissberg cycle.

Many advocates of human-caused global warming agree that solar cycles show correlations with regional climate variations; but, absent a proven amplification mechanism to enhance small solar energy (irradiance) variations, they reject nature in favor of fossil fuel burning. These reviews all document broadly accepted relationships of weather and climate with many different repetition cycles in solar activity, ranging from significant but random solar flares affecting jet stream tracks, to the 11-year sunspot cycle, to the long-term Milankovic orbital repetitions discussed above.

Specifically with respect to the last 120 years, the correlation of measured solar energy input variations with global surface temperature and sea surface temperature is very strong. The statistical correlation of solar irradiance with air temperature has been about 79%. In contrast, during the last 50 years, the correlation of measured carbon dioxide increases with global surface temperature has been only about 22%. This directly contradicts the assumption that carbon dioxide has had a large influence on climate in the last 50 years.

Since the end of the last Ice Age 10,000 years ago, the increase in total energy from the Sun has been about 0.6 watts per square meter, an increase of less than 0.05% over an average total of about 1367 watts per square meter. On shorter time scales, total variations reach about 3 watts per square meter, or 0.22% from the average. Considering the actual amount of possible atmospheric heating (30% ofincoming solar energy is reflected to space), this variation results in a third to a half a degree Centigrade(0.6 to 0.9 degree Fahrenheit) global temperature change over seven years, that is, a half solar cycle.

Various natural mechanisms for visible, infrared, and UV light reflection, adsorption, emission, and water vapor feedback determine the net solar heating effect on the Earth. Global atmospheric circulation moderates the short-term solar energy inputs, particularly upward convection of oceanic heat and water vapor in the large scale equatorial Hadley Cells that span latitudes from 30ºS to 30ºN . Ocean circulation overall moderates the long-term transfer of solar energy around the globe.

Evidence for the existence, if not the nature, of a means for amplifying solar energy-solar magnetic field interactions with Earth comes from the oceans. Determination of the total contribution of the oceans to heating of the atmosphere, using three independent observational measures of oceanic heat flux, shows that the oceans' heat contribution to be five to seven times larger than variations in total solar energy input.

Additional support that an amplification mechanism exists comes from recent observational data on variations in stratospheric water vapor concentrations over three decades. These data suggest that decreases in water vapor have contributed to amplified sea surface cooling since 2000 while increases between 1980 and 2000 accented surface warming. This relationship may correspond with stratospheric cooling and lower water retention due to lower than average solar energy input since 2000.

Climate change driven by the Sun constitutes a strongly competitive, purely scientific hypothesis to the climate modeling-political hypothesis of human-caused global warming advocated by climate modelers and their acolytes in the science, media, and political establishments. Solar influence ranges from significant but random solar flares affecting jet stream tracks, to the 11-year sunspot cycle, to the 22- year magnetic cycle, up to the long-term Milankovic orbital repetitions discussed above. The current decade or longer period of cold winters in the northern United States and Europe coincide with a relatively prolonged reduction in sunspot activity below even the norm for a minimum in the 11-year cycle.

Actual observations show that climate varies in response to natural forces and that human burning of fossil fuels has had negligible effect over the last 100 years. Lets us hope that State and national policy makers taking office in 2011 and 2013 will understand the facts about natural climate change and the fictions about human influence on change before taking enormous constitutional and economic risks - and before liberty and incomes suffer further erosion.

This is the whole article, although I have edited off the footnotes which document the research. You can believe this sort of logic, or buy into the pseudo-religion backed by computer modeling produced by the Al Gore's of the world.

Christopher Chetsanga writing in Scidev:

courtesy of IDP

It is those who generate new knowledge, who can patent it and convert it to wealth that will make a difference in a community. Such S&T capabilities will enable a nation to overcome technology barriers. That way young scientists can learn to swim with the technology current rather than watching from the shoreline. But our universities are in danger of functioning as diploma factories rather than knowledge repositories.

More here

The issue of Global Warming has sort of faded away right now- probably because it is the middle of winter, and it is very cold, and when it is cold, it is a tough sell to convince people that the whole planet is uncontrollably warming because of human actions and the only solution is massive government control over every aspect of our lives. Don't worry though- when summer gets really hot, idiots will parrot this idea again and government will take away more of our liberty.

I've written about this twice before- my first post was called Global Warming Melted my Ice Cream Cone, and mocked Global Warming Believers by using some science (in this case, the fact that the ice sheet in Greenland melting was not due to my driving an SUV but rather the emergence of a hot spot of liquid hot magma emerging under Greenland). In this post, I hint that I think that global warming is less about science and more about pagan beliefs in mother nature (with government officials playing the role of shamans!).

To prove that this is not some nutty theory of mine, I also posted several days later an article by Australian writer Arthur Herman called Climate hysterics v heretics in an age of unreason, based on his article of the same name. In his article, he says that the reason why logic and reason is rejected in the global warming debate is that they are believers, not scientists. It's a good article in its entirety- check it out by looking at the post.

Why do I bring these points up today? Over at Ace of Spades there was a link to another Aussie writer talking about global warming, and I really think for some reason down under they understand the nature of the beast. The article is called "Beware the church of climate alarm"- here is a snippet from it:

But the real fear driving climate alarmists wild is that a more rational approach to the fundamentalist religion of global warming may be in the ascendancy.

"We're dealing with dogma and people who, when challenged, become quite vicious and irrational" (said one expert about people who believe in the myth of global warming.) Human-caused climate change is being "promoted with religious zeal … there are fundamentalist organisations which will do anything to silence critics. They have their holy books, their prophet [is] Al Gore. And they are promoting a story which is frightening us witless [using] guilt [and urging] penance."

It is difficult for non-scientists to engage in the debate over what causes climate change and whether or not it can be stopped by new taxes and slower growth, because dissenting voices are shouted down by true believers in the scientific community who claim they alone have the authority to speak.

A couple good books if anyone wants to know more are Science, Politics, And Gnosticism by Eric Voegelin and Blue Planet in Green Shackles by Vaclav Klaus.

UPDATE: Here is a good website that pulls together a lot of stories of those who are skiptical about the claims made about global warming. Check it out!

Anil Gupta writes:

Local innovations could help inform scientific research, if only scientists would invest the proper resources into exploring them.
Scientists do not respond as enthusiastically as they should because they are often sceptical about the value of traditional knowledge. There are few opportunities for understanding the real potential of grassroots innovations and the rewards of validating or further developing them may seem limited.

He suggests:

Creating a global grassroots innovation foundation could also help blend formal and informal science to address persistent problems of survival in marginal environments. Billions are spent on solving the problems of the poor, but not the millions it would take to forge partnerships between informal and formal science around the world to develop people-oriented sustainable technologies.

via SciDev
photo courtesy of the InnovationInsider

In 2007, Global Warming was the reason behind the lowering lake levels on Lake Superior. Clearly, researchers at the Lake Superior Conference in 2007 agreed, there's a huge threat from global warming- a warmer climate means a warmer Lake Superior. In fact, apparently global warming was so bad back in the hot summer of 2007, that researchers at the University of Minnesota and elsewhere were forced to study whether Lake Superior's low water levels were the result of global warming, and question whether Lake Superior might even disappear unless government took drastic action and controlled every major industry in the United States.

In fact, back in 2007, a United Nations study predicted that Global warming would lower water levels in by 5 feet over the next century. Poor Lake Superior was already called an 'early victim of climate change' by scientists in Duluth, adding that the time to radically change our society away from a free and prosperous one is now. Good thing we have such great politicians such as U.S. Senator Russ Feingold, who seized on this alarmist and populist issue to announce that he will demand swift action to address the reported dramatic drop in water levels in the Great Lakes, including the strengthening of federal power over businesses and individuals, in the hope that by controlling everyone's behavior, the water levels could be raised.

Well, through his actions and the fact that man-made global warming is made-up by stupid watermellons (people who are green on the outside, but red inside) out there, I am happy to say that Lake Superior has been rising ever since Feingold's announcement. It appears the the water levels also go up and down throughout the year, based on seasons incredibly, to the surprise of many scientists who assumed that they were God and controlled the whole world with their new super-modeling computers. The Detroit News story says that "Rising Great Lakes levels may give Michigan a lift", and document the rise in water levels over the last 3 years.

If only data existed that might show that taking a single snapshot on water levels, based on a single time point in a single year, was not the way to radically change our country and give more power to the government. If only, for example, there was a graph showing the average water levels of Lake Superior since 1860, and then we could mock all those who freaked out in 2007 and called for change based on global warming. I personally am eagerly awaiting the correction the UN is sure to issue based on this new data, that will call for radical changes back to the way America used to be, when we were free and prosperous.