Archive | Earth and cosmos

RSS feed for this section

green issues, geology, geography, space, astronomy

Danish wind power

danish wind power

As we know, all lefties and particularly greens, appear to lie about everything all the time. No claim they make about anything ever stands up to inspection(othert than claims that they are going to relieve you of vast sums of your money, but they usually gloss over those).

For years we’ve had the tedious and tiresome claims about the wonders of the Danish wind ‘investment’ (read ‘spending’) and how rainbows and unicorns will flow bountifully from the singing blades. Unfortunately, it is, and has always been a complete lie, or lies, both of omission and commission, for a number of very obvious reasons.…

We are omnivores

balanced diet

Whilst I agree that cruelty to animals is a huge issue that needs to be tackled, to conflate ‘human cruelty to animals’ with ‘humans should not eat animals’ does not stand up – you cannot escape biology!

The fact is that we, because we are human, are omnivores – the acid in our digestive system allows us to process raw meat. Therefore in a crisis we could survive on dead flesh. Yucky for most people to contemplate, including me, but still true.…

Moon landing, part four

Part onepart twopart threepart four

At the start of part four, what is becoming painfully obvious is that there are too many on both sides adopting positions and tones which are easy to debunk.  They set up a construct or experiment, along with “they would have” or “it must have” and on the strength of that, start slagging off the other side ad hominem.

As for that Fox show, it was a sitting target:

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/iangoddard/moon01.htm

That really annoyed me and one had to wonder about Fox and whom they were actually supporting.

At one point, I thought Dave McGowan was a good one to look at but I read a debunking of him on the Boston shootings and the criticisms, in detail, of how he was assuming a large amount in his case – that pretty well excluded him on Apollo.…

Moon landing, part three

Part onepart twopart threepart four

Request of readers at this halfway point – whatever your current view on the topic, could you wait until the last of part four and then see what you think, whether it’s changed anything in your mind, reconfirmed it or whatever?

I think I’ve things to present which perhaps most have not looked into before but it really does jump one way and then the other. My own thinking at the start of this part three – but it changes in part four – is what if there was a trip to the moon but it was not manned? Two reasons for thinking that:…

Moon landing, part one

Part onepart twopart threepart four

There was a good point made by sceptics that the first five pages or so of Google search results are either NASA provided or supporting NASA, similar to the way that pro-govt or pro-PC advocates also stack Google searches.

There was a good point made by NASA supporters that conspiracists don’t read the science and know nothing.  Many do seem to know nothing or quickly jump onto bandwagons.  The Fox show on the Moon Landing hoax for a start was let down by its breathless tone, dystopic music, repetition and reduction to about five or six points which still stood up at the end.

Judging science on a filmmaker’s skill and sense of the dramatic is hardly logical thinking. In fact, Fox – NASA – NASA – Fox – hmmmm, one wonders. So to the science and this is a good exercise in plausibility:

http://www.clavius.org/envrad.html

Key points