Not bad for a 10-year-old!!!
She is now acknowledged by the International Astronomical Union to be the youngest person to make such a discovery.
Perhaps more than one supernova has been discovered on New Year’s Eve!
Recent Comments
RSS feed
Ottawa’s ‘green-bin’ program and Orgaworld: an open letter to journalist Rob Snow
December 23, 2010 — xanthippaHi Mr. Snow!
There are some very important questions we need to learn about Orgaworld – how they got awarded the contract and what type of due diligence was or was not done leading up to this. Forensic audit should only be one step in this process.
I wonder if there is a clause in the Ottawa ‘deal’ with Orgaworld which would permit us to cancel the contract without penalties (to us):
- IF Orgaworld fails to produce ‘usable’ compost?
As per The Toronto Star, the compost Orgaworld produces from the Toronto ‘diversion program’ is so toxic, it would kill any plants growing from the soil it was used to ‘enrich’.
The sole reason for the green-bin program is to produce compost that can be used as fertilizer.
If independent tests show that the compost Orgaworld produces is so toxic that it cannot be used as fertilizer, would this constitute ‘non-compliance’ and/or ‘breech of contract’ by Orgaworld?
- IF Orgaworld is caught shipping some of the materials from the green-bins to be disposed of as garbage?
In Toronto, whose program is admittedly different from ours, they estimate that up to 22% of the materials Orgaworld accepts is not composted, but burned or dumped in landfills.
Is this standard practice here?
What percentage of the ‘Ottawa green-bin materials’ we think is being composted does Orgaworld dispose of as ‘garbage’?
We are paying much more for ‘composting’ than we would be for ‘garbage disposal’: if Orgaworld does not actually compost a certain percentage of the material, should they not refund us that percentage of the fees we pay them?
Would ‘not-composting’ materials we pay them to ‘compost’ constitute ‘non-compliance’ and/or ‘breech of contract’ by Orgaworld?
- IF any of the materials (finished or not) Orgaworld releases from their plant is found to contain active pathogens which should have been rendered inert in ‘properly produced compost’?
The Toronto Star had found that some of the compost produced from the Toronto program which had been sold as ‘finished product’ actually still contained some live germs which should have been killed in a ‘proper’ composting process. (To be fair – it does not specify if it was Orgaworld’s product or another manufacturer’s.)
In an separate incident, it was found that Orgaworld had dumped tons of semi-processed bio-matter – ‘unfinished’ and in various stages of decomposition in places like gravel pits, farm fields and city-owned land without preparing these places to accept bio-waste.
This is an active threat to public health!
Rotting food contains bacteria and other micro-organisms which are toxic to us, humans. The composting process kills these infectious agents, so that by the time the finished compost is spread on land, the deadly pathogens are neutralized and cannot enter the drinking water system and/or cling to the produce grown in that soil (like, say, e-coli contamination of spinach…). Some pathogens can become airborne, causing people who inhale them to become ill.
The ‘accelerated’ processes in use in the modern ‘composting factories’ rely on a highly controlled and regulated environment to achieve the composting process which kills these deadly germs. (In the natural, non-accelerated composting process, this takes years and this is why our ancestors had exact composting practices instead of just dumping rotting food on their fields.)
If the bio-matter is dumped outside of this controlled environment before it is completely turned into compost, these pathogens will still be active and pose a serious danger.
(In addition to the ‘leaching’ and ‘airborn pathogen’ dangers, this could lead to a type of decompostion during which Nitrous Oxide (N2O) is released: this ‘greenhouse gas’ is 240 times ‘stronger’ than Carbon Dioxide (CO2)!) 😉
Would endangering public health through disposal of only partially-neutralized bio-waste constitute ‘non-compliance’ and/or ‘breech of contract’?
Which brings me to some questions:
What is the quality of the compost Orgaworld produces from the Ottawa ‘Green-bin program’?
Has anyone tested it?
If so, who?
And where?
How independent are the testing facilities?
The Orgaworld’s Ottawa composting factory had a fire a few months ago. Fire/smoke is an indicator of ‘improper composting practices’. Has there ever been an investigation to ascertain which ‘best practices’ were breached in the composting process and caused the fire and how the resultant product will be impacted?
What are the provisions in the Ottawa-Orgaworld contract for non-compliance/breech of contract? What are the penalties specified?
Are these provisions/penalties ‘similar’ to the ‘industry standard’?
How does this compare to the ‘standard’ for other ‘City contracts’?
How does this compare to the ‘standard contracts’ in the private sector?
Who is responsible for the oversight? What are the terms and conditions? Are they being fulfilled?
Who is responsible for any action should there be non-compliance/breech of contract?
Where/how can citizens (especially taxpayers) monitor this process?
Mr. Snow: you are an excellent journalist who often interviews our City Officials as well as all kinds of other interesting people. Would you, please, find the answers to these questions?
If you do find any answers to these questions – or any other relevant information – I would be very happy to publish all of it on my blog.
Sincerely yours,
Alexandra,
blogging as Xanthippa
References (in case the links get stripped out from the text):
http://www.thestar.com/iphone/article/660864
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/660862
http://www2.macleans.ca/tag/orgaworld/
http://www.ehow.com/list_7313994_hazards-composting.html
http://www.pma.com/resources/issues-monitoring/food-safety/key-learnings-real-world-terms
http://www.extension.org/article/28585
http://www.owma.org/committees/members.asp?mode=d&org=244
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Smouldering+compost+sends+firefighters+Orgaworld+plant/3427666/story.html
Thunderf00t: ‘The Real threat from Islam’
September 10, 2010 — xanthippaOooops!
It seems that, yet again, Thunderf00t needs to explain that by treating Islam exactly the same way he treats ALL religions and creeds, he is not a ‘bigot’ or a ‘racist’ who is ‘picking’ on Islam:
“Peole who walk are easier to rule”
June 15, 2010 — xanthippaOK – I did not look up the quote exactly: if I picked up the book, I’d end up reading it (again) instead of writing this post… Still, the sentiment is expressed accurately.
The speaker was Leto, the millennia old, human-half-morphed-into-The-Worm God Emperor of Dune in Frank Herbert‘s most illuminating books on human nature. This tyrant (who only did things ‘for the good of his people’) ruled with an iron fist. Part of the method which he used to maintain control over the population was by controlling all means of transportation except for walking/jogging.
Leto controlled all the vehicles, in the air and on the ground. At one point, he explained that the reason for this was that a population that walks is easier to rule.
Now, let me digress to my childhood ‘behind the iron curtain’… I’ll connect it up, I promise!
The defining thing, the one aspect of life that took up almost all the ‘free time’ of most of the people I remember from my childhood, was ‘supply logistics’.
First of all, I did not know any family – not a single one – where there was a ‘stay-at-home-parent’.
The socialist state instilled, as the most supreme of all ‘human rights’, ‘the right to work‘. This meant that every single person had a right to a job. Zero unemployment! Nobody starving on the street! Heaven on Earth!
Of course, nobody was permitted to ‘opt out’ from this ‘right’. After all, The State could not appear to be failing anyone in upholding this ‘human right’!
The upshot of this was that, whether a parent wanted (or could afford to – the economic reality would have made this very, very difficult) to stay at home longer than the permitted 6-month maternity leave, their ‘right to work’ trumped their wishes and they had to go off to ‘a job’.
After a full day of work, one had to find a way to buy necessities of life: from food to toothpaste and toilet paper. Because everyone walked to shops, or took public transit, shopping for food for a week’s worth of ‘stuff’ at one time (as is the norm in North America) was not an option: even if you could carry it all home in your two hands (often walking up many stories in apartment buildings where elevators either did not exist or did not work), there would not be enough room in your tiny fridge and ‘compact’ kitchen for all that much. So, ‘food gathering’ was a daily task.
It had to be planned well – the shops were not open in the evenings, so one had to rush off straight from work to the bus, so one could get to the store on the other side of town which had supposedly got a shipment of toothpaste. Or to that clothing store that got white/yellow t-shirts which were the required gym uniform for the kids, but of which there was constantly a shortage .
And you had to leave yourself enough time to make it to at least 2-3 stores: even though milk and bread were usually available, they weren’t always… And that does not even touch on the meat situation…
An average woman could expect to spend at least 2 hours a day ‘shopping’ – running from one place to another, standing in one queue after another, just to keep the household supplied with food and soap… This was true of ‘everything’: many men spent a lot of their time trying to find supplies and professionals who’d help with any household repairs or renovations, car care, and so on…
Plus people had to try and have a supply of luxury items, like, say, packages of ‘Western’ coffee: one had to bring these when one went to see a dentist or a doctor or any other kind of ‘professional’. Needless to say, much of people’s ‘private’ conversations were about what one could find where, when.
This did not leave most people much time or energy for ‘political unrest’….
Which was the point!
Some of the shortages were real – but others were completely artificial: an item of which there was a shortage in one area was temporarily over-supplied in another. This was actually very, very clever: not only did it keep most of the people too busy to want do anything about the political system, it gave them a chance to ‘succeed’ – and to feel the satisfaction that comes from succeeding!
OK – it may seem petty to us. But, after a while of living in a system where necessities are not easily obtainable, people quickly begin to derive their self-worth from how good a ‘gather’ they are!
This makes sense: humans started out as hunters and gatherers. It is only natural that giving people these daily obstacles to overcome, giving them the opportunity to have these little successes over and over and over, makes the population relatively docile. In this type of a society, it is only if the shortages are too big and numerous and the majority of the people is denied the warm feelings they get from overcoming these daily ‘little obstacles’ that the population is likely to turn militant.
That is human nature.
So, what does that have to do with ‘people who walk’?
Driving from one place to another is too easy: it does not take anywhere near as much time as trying to take public transit (and to bring your shopping back home on crowded public transit), it also takes much more physical energy to walk than it does to drive. Living like this, people don’t have time or energy to do much more than grumble about ‘the system’…
Plus, it is the government who controls the public transportation systems: if you want to stop a lot of people getting to a specific place to protest, just delay all the trains coming into town that day. Or, cancel the bus runs that day. Let’s see how many people will show up at the demonstration, when most are stuck in ‘in between stations’!
Let’s face it: having control of one’s mobility enables one’s independence!
Which brings me to my actual point:
What are the ‘carbon caps’ focusing on?
If you follow all the ‘recommendations’ of the UN and their warm mongers, what kind of public policies flow out of them?
PUBLIC TRANSPORT = GOOD
PERSONAL VEHICLES = BAD
Now, more than ever, we are bombarded almost daily with more and more evidence that the IPCC recommendations are not founded on any scientific observations but are 100% top-down policy driven. Today, one of the top IPCC people (a prof of climate studies at East Anglia, none-the-less) published a paper that claims there was NEVER a consensus of thousands (or even hundreds) of scientists behind the IPCC reports!
Of course, those of us interested in the actual science of ‘Global Warming’ and not the politics have been pointing this out for a long time – not that it got much play in the ‘balanced reporting’ by the MSM…
WHY?!?!?
The IPCC report claims a crisis of global proportions – which could only be solved by the establishment of a global governance structure, controlled by the UN. Now, even as the credibility of those claims is melting away into thin air, the UN is already laying the groundwork for another ‘catastrophe of world proportions’ which can only be brought under control by a world-wide effort – co-ordianted, predictablky enough, by the UN whose appointed committees would have the right to shape all the national governments’ policies…
You’d better get ready for all the new buzzwords!
Oh, and by the way – their suggested ‘solution’ to the artificially induced ‘banking crisis’ is to levy a ‘world tax’ on each and every banking transaction: giving the UN the first direct ‘global taxation’ revenue and powers.
Hey – where is that a ‘Muh-ha-ha!’ sound coming from?
ZOMGitsCriss on Ezra Levant and Macleans and Fitna
March 26, 2010 — xanthippaZOMGitsCriss is somewhat of a presence among the ‘pro-free-speech’ crowd on YouTube…
She is a part of what I think is a small but growing international group of young people (most of whom are quite ‘left-wing’ – though, I have no idea where Criss stands politically) who are fighting the anti-censorship, pro-free-speech attitudes and policies which are beginning to creep onto the Internet and which threaten the impartiality of this medium to carry all kinds of information and all kinds of messages without outright censorship or some of them nebulous, non-transparent machinations through search-engine algorithm-manipulation which seem to make some information on the internet easy to find while making other ‘stuff’ so hard to find, it is, for all practical purposes, inaccessible!
Anyhow….
When I saw that the latest video of this Romanian free-speech activist mentions Ezra Levant, Mcleans (the Mark Steyn thingy) and Fitna – well, I though I ought to share it with you.
So, without further ado, here is “Islam is so wonderful and sciency and peaceful”:
Genetic Modification: What defines you as ‘human’?
March 17, 2010 — xanthippaThis is a discussion we really, really ought to have had long before we developed the technology to do this.
It is not a good situation when ‘public debate’ – for whatever reasons, be it cultural, religious or just because it is easier to control an ignorant population – does not keep up with our technological abilities.
This all comes down to the whole ‘knowledge’ versus ‘wisdom’ thing…
What prompted this?
We have long been served plant-foods which contain artificially spliced in genes from other plants – or, possibly, animals. And, we are not permitted to know (legally) what is what. Now, we are about to be presented with meat which contains the genes of several animals…. (H/T: BCF)
We may know what we are doing – technologically. But, do we understand what we are doing, both morally and legally?
* * *
We can no longer even agree on what defines ‘male’ versus ‘female’.
Really – do think about it.
It used to be easy: the external presentation was sufficient. And, any hermaphrodites were either so successful at passing themselves as one or the other sex that the question was really mute. Even that really, really weird case in some isolated pacific islands where ‘every generation’, some ‘clearly female children’ would, during puberty, develop into males. To the islanders, it was clear: while the child ‘appeared’ female, it was ‘a female’. When the external presentation changed and the child began to look like a man, the (now) youth became ‘a male’!
But, now….
It is no longer so simple!
At first, it looked like our scientific knowledge actually simplified things: females have two X chromosomes while males have one X chromosome and one Y chromosome. Simple, right?
Except that….
Back in the late 1980’s, we learned that there are many men who have the required XY combination – plus another X chromosome! Sometimes, as many as 5 or more ‘scrunched’ looking X chromosomes were found! (Not important here, but they also found that the men with the extra ‘scrunched’ X chromosomes had a propensity for becoming very, very violent criminals.)
The question then becomes: is a person with two X chromosomes legally female?
Or, is the presence of a Y chromosome that which defines a person as ‘male’?
We never really had that public debate….when we learned that one’s self-perception as ‘male’ or ‘female’ is set by specific hormones affecting our brain development while we are still fetuses! If a particular chemical gets released during a very specific point of our fetal development, we will think of our selves as ‘male’. If it does not get released – or gets released late, or in too small amounts, we self-perceive as ‘female’, regardless of our genetic makeup or our sexual orientation!
Then we learned how to perform ‘sex change’ operations….
…which opened a whole new debate!
If a person is born female – double X chromosomes – and undergoes a sex-change operation, that person is now legally male: regardless of ‘genetic makeup’. So, we are back to ‘external presentation’ as being the key defining element.
Except for the case of Caster Semenya…
(Aside: this case would be mute if we did not practice strict sexual apartheid in sports – another issue we should really, really take a look at … but that is not the focus of this post.)
What I am trying to point out is that where ‘male’ and ‘female’ used to be defined easily (more or less), using ‘common sense’, the scientific advances we have led to technology which muddles the debate, to the point where different countries around the world have irreconcilably different legal definitions of ‘maleness’ and ‘femaleness’!
* * *
Still, this is a minor debate compared to the ‘what defines ‘humanness” debate!
In my never-humble-opinion, this debate is more charged with religious pitfalls than just about anything else! After, all, the whole ‘abortion’ debate is only a sub-section of this greater debate of ‘where’ we draw the legal – as well as moral, as it is wrong to legislate morality, so the two ought not necessarily be the same – line of what defines who/what is or is not human!
(This is NOT meant to be an ‘abortion debate’ – please, don’t turn it into one! I only mentioned it because I wanted to underlie both just how important and charged this debate is ….and how bizarre it is that we are NOT having this ‘greater’ public debate!)
For many years, I had a neighbour whose daughter was born missing a pair of chromosomes. Still, she was completely human! Disabled, yes. But, she WAS a human being!
Yet, because she was missing two whole chromosomes, she was genetically more different from ‘average human’ than most primates are….and we certainly don’t consider THEM human! ALL primates are used as ‘live meat’ – without any regard to anything else – in all the vaccination-producing and other ‘medical’ labs in the world!
So, what defines YOU as ‘human’?
Just how much genetic damage and/or mutation do you have to suffer before you and your children are no longer defined as ‘human’? Legally or morally?
We share 98% of our DNA with chimpanzees – yet, legally, they are ‘live meat’.
And people missing way more than 2% of human DNA, like my ex-neighbour, are still ‘human’!
This is a really, really important public debate we ought to be having now! OK – we should have been having it long ago…. Still, delaying it now is dangerous to the very core of our society!
Why?
Because now that we have the technical ability to swap genes between species, we are putting our ability into practice without having defined how we will ‘consider’ the ‘results’!
We can take genetic material from one species, splice it into another – and have the ‘spliced’ genes passed on to the next generation!
And, we have not had the public discussion about this. About what makes one species unique – and how that uniqueness is or is not affected by splicing in genes from another species!
Yes, this has been going on for a long time. Animal genes were spliced into plant genes, genes from one animal are being spliced into another – we have the technical ability! Yet, we have not really – really – had the public debate about it…
Oh, sure – we have talked about ‘Franken foods’! About plants which have been genetically modified in one way or another. Still, much of the public debate has been stifled – and, perhaps more ominously, there is actual legislation that forbids produce labels which would identify whether the food one is about to purchase has – or has not – been genetically modified!
WHY?
“To prevent prejudice against genetically modified foods!’ – we are told…
No – I don’t mean to get into weird conspiracy theories here. I think the answer is very simple: money. If a genetic manipulation is financially beneficial to the ‘genetic manipulator’, that ‘genetic manipulator’ will consider investing in ‘product-favourable legislation’ to be no less important a component of their investment in ‘bringing the product to market’ as ‘scientific research’ how to do it actually is. That is not a ‘conspiracy theory’ – that is simply ‘good business sense’.
Again – the mechanics of this are not the point of this post. Let’s just accept the current state of things as they are now – not as they ‘ought to be’ – and get to the greater issue.
Just how MUCH genetic material from one species does a living organism have to contain (or be missing) before it is legally considered (or no longer considered) a member of a particular species?
We do now have mice which have had ‘human breast cancer’ genes spliced in – and pass them on to their offspring. That means that human genes (OK – ‘broken’ human genes, but human genes none-the-less) are present in sentient beings which do not enjoy any of the rights and freedoms of fully-human beings. Just how MUCH of our ‘human’ DNA should a creature contain before it is ‘human’?
Legally?
Morally?
What about my neighbour, born missing a few chromosomes? If a child is born with ‘sufficiently large’ genetic disorder, will it no longer have the legal protections of other humans?
* * *
OK – let’s consider the story I linked: ‘ pork’ which contains mouse genes is now being proposed for sale, without any labels informing the customers that they are buying (presumably for consumption) meat which contains both pig and mouse genes. We also know there are ‘genetically designed’ mice out there, which contain human genes…
And fish are about to enter our food markets which contain ‘beef-genes’…tip of the proverbial iceberg!
How long before we are being served ‘animal meat’ which contains ‘some’ human genetic material?
How MUCH human genetic material does a meat have to contain before it is considered ‘cannibalism’ to consume it?
Will it be illegal for us to even know we are consuming ‘flesh’ which contains ‘some’ human DNA?
What I am trying to say is….before we physically blur the lines between species – something our technology today permits us to do with impunity – we ought to remember that we, humans, are just a species ourselves!
Any ‘genetic pollution’ we permit, any ‘genetic-line-smudging’ we allow, will, necessarily, set a precedent for all ‘species-specific’ blurring of lines – even the lines of the human species.
I do NOT pretend to have any of the answers. I freely admit I am deeply conflicted on the issue….
Really – we ought to talk about this!
IPCC references – I’m checking them out
March 11, 2010 — xanthippaI did it!
I signed up to be a part of the group of ordinary citizens which does some due diligence on the IPCC 4th report’s references!
We’ve been bombarded with assertions that the IPCC review is based on ‘solid, scientific studies which were published in reputable scientific journals after undergoing a thorough peer-review which ensured only ‘sound’ science gets published.
Right.
Yet, it is exactly this claim that the IPCC review is using peer-reviewed (peer-review is ‘quality control’ in scientific studies) – and therefore high-quality and somehow ‘unassailable’ scientific studies – it is this claim that is being widely used as a shield to any criticism of the report and the political policies it is attempting to mandate. In short, the IPCC ‘crowd’ is deriving the authoritativeness of their report from the claim they used peer-reviewed science!
And – even after their earlier predictions have clearly not come true (their own top scientists have testified that there has been NO statistically significant WARMING in the last 14 years – and the total warmingfrom 150 years ago to-date just over 1/2 degree Celsius: well within the ‘noise’ one would expect due to natural variation) and every respectable scientist would admit their hypothesis is faulty, these people are still claiming that the IPCC report is accurate ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ and that we should all approve shady schemes which will make them rich!
So, we are checking nothing but the veracity of this claim – just how much of the report is based on solid science and how much is based on ‘gray literature’ !
Volunteers who sign up each take a chapter and see which references are actually peer-reviewed scientific studies. Each chapter’s references will be reviewed by at least 3 different volunteers, to minimize errors….and if there is any doubt as to the count of ‘peer-reviewed’ versus ‘other’ references, the number most favourable to the IPCC will be used.
And, we’re not even digging into the whole ‘pal-review’ instead of ‘peer review’ – all we are ‘tagging’ are references to government policy reports, WWF publications (yes, I HAVE come across one of these in the first 100 references I checked), random websites (yes, I saw one of them, too), self-references, EU or UN press releases, various government policy statements (yes, I saw many of these, too), and so on.
This project is not ‘examining the validity of the science’ – that is complex and people who are imminently qualified are already doing a great job doing that.
Nor are we taking a look at ‘what studies were included’ versus ‘what studies were available’. That is, we are not checking if the report is based on ‘cherry-picked’ studies – ones that only show one side of the issue – also a very important factor which could be a source of a bias.
No – not going there.
In other words, we are not auditing the science in the IPCC report.
Instead, we are testing the assertion – nay, claim! – that the IPCC report is based on peer-reviewed, scientific studies published in reputable scientific journals!
That is all!
Still, it is a big task: the chapter I am checking has over 600 references…. it takes time to check them!
But, it is a little ‘walk-on-part’ in this war of scientific skepticism against politicized subversion of science….and that is important.
Once the good folks (Donna and her helpers) from NOconsensus.org get all the well documented results and meld them together, they will let us know just how much the IPCC report is based on scientific studies vs. ‘gray literature’!
Stay tuned….
Seeking volunteers for Crowdreview of IPCC’s references!
March 9, 2010 — xanthippaDonna Lafromboise of ‘There is No Frakking “Scientific Concensus” on Global Warming’ is seeking volunteers who are willing to spend 3-10 hours in reviewing the IPCC’s references – simply to check (and count) the number of ‘peer-reviewed’ references versus ‘other’ sources (like, say, an ad by WWF, a press release, a guess in an obscure non-scientific magazine, and so on).
The reason?
Most of our policymakers (worldwide) are pretending (acting as if) the 2007 IPCC report were the absolute truth, represented a 100% scientific consensus (you know – anyone who disagrees is automatically defined as a non-scientist, or worse – a denialist!).
One of the reasons most often cited for considering this to be THE authoritative last word that we, pesky humans are boiling poor Mother Earth do death is that the IPCC report is based on solid scientific evidence. All the IPCC evidence, the warm-mongers claim, is based on scientific studies which were peer-reviewed and published in reputable scientific journals.
‘Peer-review’ is what makes a scientific study ‘respectable’. It is a process in which other respected scientists (ones who are not connected with the people who did the original work and who wrote it up for publication) read the original study, examine how the data was collected, how it was manipulated, how the study analyzed the data and whether the data supported the conclusions which the authors of the study made. In other words, it’s like having a teacher mark your homework….. If it is ‘good’ – it passes the ‘peer-review’ and the scientific journal can publish the study with the knowledge that their reputation will not be tarnished by doing so.
This, of course, puts great pressure on the scientists reviewing the study. No, they are not expected to re-create the experiment, but, they are responsible for making sure that good scientific methodology was followed, that the data collected actually measured what the original scientists thought it measured (THIS is where MORE mistakes in scientific studies happen than most people – including scientists – are aware of), that the statistical analysis used was appropriate for the data, and so on. It is a big responsibility – with the greatest asset a scientist has on the line: their reputation!
That is why ‘peer-review’ is considered to be an assurance of ‘good, sound science’.
And THAT is why the IPCC and its supporters argue that since the IPCC is based on ‘peer-reviewed’ scientific studies, it is above reproach!
OK….
For the sake of the argument, let us set aside any claims that the IPCC-associated scientists turned ‘peer-review’ into ‘pal-review’ and actually check to see just how accurate the claim that the IPCC used only scientific studies which were ‘peer-reviewed’ and published in reputable scientific journals.
‘How much of the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report is based on peer-reviewed literature? Recent examinations of two random chapters found only 24 percent and 58 percent of the sources cited were peer-reviewed journal articles.’ ‘
So, she has decided to put the whole thing to the test!
But, that is a lot of checking…. Therefore, she is looking for volunteers who would be willing to share the load:
‘The goal of this project is for each chapter to be counted thrice, by three volunteers working independently of one another. In the event that tallies differ dramatically, further examination will occur. Should they differ only marginally, the count that is most favourable to the IPCC will be used.’
So, if you have a bit of time and are willing, head on to her site and get counting!
The coolest Periodic Table ever!
March 1, 2010 — xanthippaYes – there is a lot to write about. Much is happening in the world around us that needs commentary….but, well, this is really, really cool!
This is perhaps the neatest Periodic Table I have come across – ever!
Interactive – informative – and hours of fun!
Enjoy!
|
CO2 gives ‘reflected heat’ a ‘cold shoulder’: Knowledge Drift
February 28, 2010 — xanthippaInteresting post at Knowledge Drift: ‘Longwave seeks hot date; Cold Shoulder from CO2’
“The wheels are falling off the AGW bus. Resignations, papers withdrawn, admissions of fraudulent analysis, bad data, missing data… and now the Institute of Physicists, the Royal Society of Chemists, and the Royal Statistical Society have all provided official submissions to the British Parliament. They are all saying pretty much the same thing. The research done at the CRU doesn’t come anywhere near close to the standards required to be called science.
…
“The problem with the common explanations of CO2 as a greenhouse gas is that they are both over simplified, and incomplete. For starters, even the term “greenhouse gas” is misleading. …”
From there, it goes into very clear, understandnable explanations of the inconsistencies in the hypothesis of Carbod-doixide forced Global Warming.
It is well worth the read!
Xanthippa's Chamberpot 