Can Christians be libertarians?

I am discussing the question with Dr. Katherine Albrecht on her show at 5 PM Eastern. To listen, do the following:

(1) Go to GCN Live
(2) Click: “Listen Live” in the upper right
(3) Go to “Channel 2”

Call-in Numbers: (800) 259-9231 (651) 695-7777

On an unrelated note, I’m now ready to take the names of anyone who is interested in proof-reading chapters for my forthcoming book. I’d prefer it if only those reasonably conversant with economic theory would contact me, as what I’m looking for is readers capable of identifing any mistakes or explanatory gaps in the text. Later, I’ll want a few economic neophytes to read through it in order to ascertain if the book is sufficiently intelligible, but we’re not there yet. So, if you know the difference between marginal utility and a margin call and you are interested in offering constructive criticism, please shoot me an email.

Science, by the book

Perhaps those who believe I do not understand science could inform me which of these textbook definitions – helpfully provided by NS – is the correct one. Because after reading all of these competing definitions, I have to admit, maybe I don’t understand it. It’s rather strange, isn’t it, that the very method science fetishists inform us is the only means of precisely determining the truth should be so… nebulous. It’s no wonder biologists are so hopelessly imprecise about everything, considering their textbooks.*

Living Enviroment by Ratzh and Colvert: Scientific inquiry includes questions, observations and inference, experimentation, collecting and organizing data, repeating experiments, and peer review.

Biology, The Study of Life by Sachraer and Stolzte: The scientific method consists of defining the problem, formulating a hypothesis, testing the hypothesis, observing and measuring, analyzing and drawing conclusions, and reporting observations.

Biology” by Mills and Levine: Science involves evidence based on observation, interpreting the evidence, and explaining the evidence. Scientists work by studying the evidence, forming a hypothesis, setting up a controlled experiment, recoding and analyzing the results, drawing conclusions, publishing and repeating the investigation. If a controlled experiment isn’t possible, then they substitute field work.

Evironmental Science by Karen Arms: There is more then one scientific method. These can include observing, hypothesizing and predicting, experimenting, organizing and interpreting information, using graphs, sharing information, and communicating results. [I hope it’s this one… I totally drew a graph yesterday! – VD]

Modern Earth Science by Sager, Rancey, Phillips and Watenpaugh: Scientific methods include stating the problem, gathering information, forming a hypothesis, testing the hypothesis by experiment, and stating a conclusion.

Earth Science by Spaulding and Namowitz: Scientific thinking includes observations, gathering evidence, formulating a hypothesis, skeptical questioning, analyzing what is known, and using math and technology. The scientific methods of inquiry involve collecting data, analyzing the data, testing the hypothesis, and peer review in scientific journals.

Holt Science and Technology: Earth Science: Scientific methods do not have a set procedure, but they can include some or all of the following, asking a question, forming a hypothesis, testing by controlled experiment, making observations, keeping records, analyzing results, drawing conclusions, and communicating results.

Nature Physics by David Goodstein: Science is whatever scientists do.

*In fairness, after reading the original 1948 text of Paul Samuelson’s seminal Economics, it’s not hard to discern why the nation is over its ears in debt. Because, you see, for sixty years, economists have been taught that debt doesn’t count so long as it’s INTERNAL.

There is no warming

I’d heard that there were factors compromising the temperature data before, but I had no idea that it was this badly compromised:

During the past few years I recruited a team of more than 650 volunteers to visually inspect and photographically document more than 860 of these temperature stations. We were shocked by what we found. We found stations located next to the exhaust fans of air conditioning units, surrounded by asphalt parking lots and roads, on blistering-hot rooftops, and near sidewalks and buildings that absorb and radiate heat. We found 68 stations located at wastewater treatment plants, where the process of waste digestion causes temperatures to be higher than in surrounding areas.

In fact, we found that 89 percent of the stations – nearly 9 of every 10 – fail to meet the National Weather Service’s own siting requirements that stations must be 30 meters (about 100 feet) or more away from an artificial heating or radiating/reflecting heat source. In other words, 9 of every 10 stations are likely reporting higher or rising temperatures because they are badly sited.

It will be interesting to see how the AGW/CC cult attempts to discredit this information. Most likely, they’ll just ignore it, as they’ve ignored the climate science, and keep shrieking their mantra in an attempt to browbeat the ignorant. Because these days, “science” appears to be as much media propaganda as anything that even remotely resembles scientody.

This makes me wonder that if temperatures are falling despite these heat-biased factors, is it possible that excessive cooling might be in the cards?