Why Are We Not Allowed to Question Climate Science?

Have you ever noticed that when you are skeptical of climate change debating points that you are immediately called into check, called ignorant or uneducated? Why is that? Why are we told to question authority and learn to think for ourselves but forced to have climate science shoved down our throats? You see, personally, I question everything, isn't that what we are supposed to do, and when someone gives an answer which doesn't seem to jive we should ask more questions, not merely go to Google Search to read NEWS Articles, or hope to find what we are looking for. After all, often the reality is somewhere buried under a load of debris.

Okay so, perhaps like you, I know when something smells rotten, and human science has been hijacked, distorted and I wonder if we can ever trust it again. Adding fuel to the fire doesn't do any good, or CO2 from wildfires, caused by lightning and now we are told the lightning will increase therefore we can count the CO2 from wildfires as also caused by human activity, it never ends and seems there is an abundance of BS out there. Most recently, we even have people now telling us that "Inequality" is caused and will increase due to Global Warming -- which used to be defined as mankind's CO2 causing climate to warm -- but they've conveniently changed definitions, arguments or whatever to keep it going, keep the funding, and keep climate soldiers out here online shouting down any reality check which comes forth. Now it's not called Global Warming any longer - they call it climate change which no one can legitimately deny because the climate is always changing.

One thing that concerns me about "The Data" used to prove this theory correct is that the distribution of temperature sensors is skewed with too many sensors near urban heat islands. I think this is well-known and they are trying to correct the problem. Satellites can do it best. One important satellite to do this was lost on launch a couple years ago, it was to give us more accurate readings, since then NASA has put up another satellite, in conjunction with NOAA.

We are told that the temperatures have risen so far.8 degrees in 150-years, but you see there were not sensors everywhere back then, and yes we are correcting a problem that was considered to make the data questionable within the last 15-years. Then we will have data moving forward to see if the Earth is really warming up everywhere or if it is happening regionally, or changing the weather distribution. We should also be able to tell if it is from humankind's pollution distribution based on where the trade-winds and normal weather flows put that pollution. Think on this, Sincerely, Lance

26 November 2014 | Latest NewsScientists observe 'force field' protecting Earth from electron damage: 26 November 2014 | Latest NewsHelp researchers hunt ...

Depyrogenation of Equipment in Sterile Pharmaceutical Manufacturing

Depyrogenation means the removal of pyrogens from pharmaceutical equipments. Pyrogens are substances that cause fever. Both exotoxins and endotoxins may be pyrogens, but the most common pyrogens are typically endogenous to their hosts, hence, they are mainly endotoxins. Endotoxins are principally lipopolysaccharide (LPS) molecules that form part of the bacterial cell walls of Gram-negative bacteria, and which are usually released following bacterial cell lysis. After they are released, the endotoxins become pyrogenic when they access the bloodstream or tissues where they are not typically found.

Depyrogenation of equipment in sterile pharmaceutical manufacturing helps to reduce the risk of contaminating pharmaceutical preparations with pathogens, and improves the safety of medicinal products.

Maximum Acceptable Endotoxin Level:

For endotoxins to cause fever, they must reach a certain critical number inside the bloodstream or tissue. Therefore, when sterilizing pharmaceutical equipments to remove pyrogens, the degree of sterility is measured in terms of the endotoxin levels. Nonetheless, the molecular weight of endotoxins usually varies a huge deal (from 10,000 to 1,000,000 Da) and so the acceptable level is measured in terms of endotoxin units (EU). A single endotoxin unit (EU) is approximately equivalent to 100 picograms (pg) of E. coli lipopolysaccharide. However, humans can experience fever when they are exposed to as low as 5 EU/kg of body weight, and the symptoms may also include increased heart rate, low blood pressure and low urine output. In fact, even very minimal quantities of endotoxins in the bloodstream can be fatal.

Depyrogenation of equipment in sterile pharmaceutical manufacturing should help to minimize the amounts of pyrogens that can access injectable drugs through equipments. The maximum permissible levels of endotoxins in drugs should be 0.25-0.5 EU/ml for sterile water (depending on intended use), 5 EU/kg body weight for non-intrathecal drugs, and 0.2 EU/kg body weight for intrathecal drugs. Before removing the pyrogens, detection methods such as rabbit test and Limulus Amebocyte Lysate (LAL) test are used to ascertain the presence of pyrogens.

Depyrogenation Methods for Pharmaceutical Equipments:

Depyrogenation of equipment in sterile pharmaceutical manufacturing is a critical part and assured by the quality control department. All the instruments that are used in the analysis of endotoxins should be depyrogenated in order to boost the accuracy of results. For instance, test tubes and other supplies (accessories) are usually depyrogenated using Dry Heat Sterilizer (DHS) at 300ºC. Vials should also be depyrogenated using depyrogenating tunnel at a dry heat level of 300ºC. Glass vials for pharmaceutical processes should be depyrogenated using a combination of the temperature of chamber and belt-speed. Pharmaceutical equipment change parts, bung and other accessories should be washed using water for injection (WFI) before being sterilized in the autoclave. Then, the rinse water for the change parts and bungs should be analyzed for endotoxins in order to confirm the removal of pyrogens. Due to the size of endotoxins, ultra-filtration is often used to perform size-based depyrogenation.

However, because of the difficulty in selecting the most appropriate membrane, the method is preferred only when the pyrogens have a weight of 300,000 Da and larger. Depyrogenation through distillation benefits from the heat stability and large molecular weight of the endotoxins. Equipments are purified using low molecular-weight solvents, which are boiled to vaporize before the condensed vapor is collected in an endotoxin-free vessel. Depyrogenation is also accomplished through acid-base hydrolysis, oxidation, sodium hydroxide, and anion and cation exchange chromatography.

Hydraulic Fluid: Why It Matters

The aerospace industry has revolutionized the way we travel, transport goods and explore the outer limits of Earth. With that being said, the many vital components for functionality in any kind of aircraft are extremely important because of obvious reasons. Just like any other type of machinery, hydraulic fluid is a key aspect in the proper function of various components like aircraft flight control systems. With that being said, not all fluids are the same. For an example, a car and a truck are completely different vehicles which means a certain type of hydraulic fluid can be completely different than another.

Many fluids are formulated in different ways, therefore they work differently and have properties that are not the same. For instance, some fluids are made to be biodegradable so it does not harm the environment and others have special properties that make them fire resistant. Fire resistance is one of the most important properties in these types of fluids because they work with mechanical components that heat up and cause friction. Fire resistant hydraulic fluid is typically the number one liquid used by aerospace manufactures because it lessens the chance of harm.

However, it can also be designed to work with water reciprocating piston pumps to provide effective protection against corrosion, rust and microorganism growth. There are many uses for hydraulic fluid like in lifts, power steering systems, hydraulic brakes and even garbage trucks. How do you think that mechanical arm picks up dumpsters and crushes garbage? The fluid is vital for proper function and it helps components that work under high pressure operate properly.

For years, chemical manufactures have been improving hydraulic fluid for increased safety, effectiveness and eco-sustainability. Only a few manufactures produce such high quality fluids and if you are in need of some, you should conduct research on the manufacturer to make sure you get the best product on the market. Finding the balance between price and performance is key and when you combine the two, you will end up with the best solution for your needs.

Learning about the 'behind the scenes' components may shed light on to other things you may not have thought about. The proper use of hydraulic fluid may be just as important as the design of the aircraft. Think about it: without it, how could it properly operate and function? Those small and overlooked components serve a huge purpose.

My Search For The Truth - Part 6 - Does The Soul Exist?

I'll begin my analysis by making the premise that the soul and the brain are two separate entities. And to be clear, the current scientific establishment does not see it that way. Of course their contention is based upon evolution and has nothing to do with God. If you do not believe in God, then the soul - or mind - must have just evolved and is fully integrated with the brain. After all, if we can't see the soul, then it must not exist. It's just that simple. But is it?

If you look at the brain as being a complex biological computer, containing over 30 billion cells, then certain aspects of human or animal instincts and functioning can be included in the programming. On the other hand the human aspects of awareness, original thoughts and emotion, are much different. How can a computer be aware of itself, or have the emotions of achievement, appreciation for music and beauty, being in-love, grief for a loved one, or hope? The high speed calculating capabilities of a computer have little meaning if not guided by an inquisitor. For all intents and purposes the brain is a just a physical housing for interconnected neurons, that perform according the way they are programmed. As the computer/brain matures and alters its behavior because of encounters with the physical world, it is in effect adjusting to its environment and memories of past events - a form of artificial intelligence or self learning. It is not beginning a process of developing the feelings of achievement, love, and hope.It is my opinion that no self learning computer, regardless of how sophisticated, can ever attain this capability. Although computer based memories of encounters with the physical world, and learned subjects, are the data base for thinking and reasoning, they don't formulate the questions.

Consider this, if the mind is reduced to being a computer -- the physical brain -- feelings become chemical reactions, beautiful objects become light waves, and beautiful music is nothing more than vibrating molecules. How can a computer feel what it is analyzing? Is being in-love just a chemical reaction or is it something else? Is it the soul that is causing this emotion? What about decisions that you make? Are your decisions predetermined by a computer program, or do you have a free will to make a choice? If you have a free will to make a choice, then you can override the computer's decision. If your decisions are controlled by computer analyzed physical events, then you do not have a free will at all. What is the process that allows you to override the computer? Is it a soul?

Let's look at the soul and brain another way. I believe that the soul is unique to humans, and that animals do not have a soul. If animals don't have a soul, then how do their brains function? To begin let's assume that animals have instincts and bodily control functions programmed into their brains. In some cases animal instincts are so amazing that they are beyond human comprehension. Fish returning to their spawning location and birds flying south for the winter are mysterious examples of what I mean. Beyond instincts, is the ability to learn and react. Pavlov's dog is experimental proof that some animals can learn to perform in a certain way based upon stimuli. If a dog does something that the owner wants it to do, the dog gets rewarded with food and caring. With enough trials, the dog will repeat the desired action. The dog also connects its owner with food and caring. When the owner goes away the dog appears to grieve. When the owner returns the dog appears to be happy. Does this mean that the dog loves its owner, or is the dog just reacting to stimuli? To put this in human terms, how many times have you seen a male dog fall in-love with a female dog? Does the dog appreciate beautiful music? Does it prefer one color over another? Has it ever created anything? Does it show its owner that it can do new and better tricks than it had been taught? Does it worry about other dogs in its family? Does it exchange ideas with other dogs? Does it teach other dogs what it has learned? Does it have a desire to win a ball game, or does it just like to play ball? Have you ever seen a dog that was embarrassed? Have you ever seen a dog that was jealous? I don't know if this makes my point, but I think you will agree, that humans obviously have something that animals don't have. Is it a soul, or is it something that dogs will acquire if given enough time to evolve? If it is not a soul, then why didn't the evolutionary process favor dogs over humans? If this reverse case had happened, then dogs may have kept humans as pets. Don't get me wrong, I love dogs as pets, but if you believe that dogs are humans that just can't speak, it would be prudent to consider that your love for the animal may be clouding your judgment.

Y Chromosome and DNA Testing

Let's discuss a fundamental piece of basic science; the chromosome, but in particular the function of the why's and wherefore's of the Y. This chromosome is inherited from your father's side, and allows the unravelling of male history. This powerful tool will allow an individual access into their own personal family inheritance, background and where we came from.

Often the term 'I don't know who I am, or where I belong' is partnered with the identity crisis of a person trying to identify their origins. Our DNA is unique to us and individuals, but it also becomes part of a bigger picture of self-identity from who our family are.

DNA is organised into 46 chromosomes, 23 inherited from their mother and 23 inherited from their father. Y-chromosome testing involves the analysis of 17 genetic markers (called STRs) on the Y chromosome to produce a YSTR profile.

In humans, the Y chromosome spans about 58 million base pairs (the building blocks of DNA) and represents approximately 2% of the total DNA in a male cell. The human Y chromosome contains over 200 genes, at least 72 of which code for proteins. Traits that are inherited via the Y chromosome are called holandric traits (although biologists will usually just say 'Y-linked'). It gets complicated, but bear with us.

The Y chromosome is the single largest piece of inherited DNA. Most typically women have two X chromosomes and men have an X and Y. For a female to discover the genetics of a Y chromosome (the line from her Father) she would need to investigate through her brother, as long as he had the same natural parents. The next best line would then be to investigate her father and then any subsequent paternal uncles.

So what is the female counterpart? Mitochondrial DNA. The scientific structures of who we are help define where we belong. And in discovering this, we also discovery our medical histories. Armed with more knowledge than ever before, we can begin to look at how disease began to sneak into our genomes and by looking into our ancestry, scientists such as Vanesa Hayes can use ancient genomes to provide a baseline in helping us understand modern diseases.

Our DNA not only unlocks who we are now, it unlocks who we were in the past and who we could be in the future. Science is a wonder and things can only get better.

My Search For The Truth - Part 7 - Does The Soul Exist? - Continued

Although I used the dog -- in my previous article -- as an example of how the function of animal brains differ from human brains, the evolutionists use primates to make their case. Primates, whether they are apes or chimpanzees, have DNA that is very close to human DNA (Chimpanzees have 55 different DNA sequences out of 986 DNA sequences for humans), and they have similar physical attributes. In my opinion the close DNA only indicates a common designer, and DNA has nothing to do with human emotions, thoughts and reason. On the other hand, an argument can be made for an animal with hands and arms.

Let's assume that a mutation occurred millions of years ago where a primate was born without bodily hair to keep it warm. Because of the instinct for self preservation, having arms and hands would be useful in separating animal skin from a dead carcass and using the skin as a blanket or a form of clothing. Perhaps other animals have had similar hairless or furless mutations, but because of not having hands and arms they were not able to survive, and thus became extinct. Now let's assume that a second similar mutation occurred in the same timeframe and location as the first but was a different gender. The two mutations then mated with each other and produced a new form of hairless primate family. Although this new form of primate had adapted to use animal skins for blankets and clothing, it's still an animal that lived in the same environment and ate the same foods as its predecessors. But, let's be generous and say that these animals evolved differently than their predecessors. For some reason, in order to keep warm, they discovered fire. Perhaps the initial use of fire came when lightning caused a forest fire and the primates had enough intelligence to maintain a continuous flame. Then as time went by they discovered that they could make their own fires. To protect themselves from rain and predatory animals they eventually began to live in caves. When their fire accidentally burned an animal, they discovered cooked meat. Because the primates had hands and arms, they learned that they could defend themselves by wielding a club. Eventually spears, replaced clubs and so on. If all of this is true, then what could have happened in this process that would cause their original animal brains to become human brains with human emotions? Could the driving force be the need to keep warm? After all, their original primate species continued as they were and did not develop human brains over the same millions of years timeframe. Also, their ancestors didn't use their hands and arms to develop and use clubs and spears, or even find a way to initiate and use fire.

Did the above mentioned hairless primate eventually become the Neanderthal who eventually became the predecessor for modern day humans? The probable answers to these questions are beyond the scope of this article. However, the above sequence of events for hairless primates would indicate that they did not become the Neanderthals - at least from an evolutionary standpoint. The Neanderthals, on the other hand, were most likely something very different, since some evidence suggests that Neanderthals had human-like vocal cords, lived in caves, created paintings and sculptures, made tools, played musical instruments, and ritualistically buried their dead. If they had these attributes then Neanderthals are probably not just predecessors to today's humans, they are probably the ancestors of today's humans who lived in caves.

The big question is, how and when did the Neanderthals come into being? Was it a slow process of evolution, like the above mentioned primates, or was it something else? Since radiocarbon dating is known to be accurate for only the past 3,500 years, were the Neanderthals humans and/or hybrid humans who lived in a time period before the flood? While you may think that I am just brushing off a serious scientific discussion, that favors human evolution, consider this. Yes, I am biased toward proving that humans are a special creation of God; but, do you believe that paleontologists, who make the study of human origins their life's work, are less biased in their quest to prove the premise of evolution without God? If not, check out the Piltdown man hoax that was contained in textbooks for more than forty years. Then check out Ramapithecus, Nebraska man, Java man, Peking man, Homo Habilis, and Australopithecines, that were eventually proven to be incorrect data interpretations. The point that I am trying to make is that everything that has been concluded about Neanderthals is surmised based upon the investigators premise and a desire to prove human evolution without God. Other interpretations and conclusions have been discarded by the currently ruling scientific community because of religious implications. Radiocarbon dating of bones, and mitochondrial extraction and interpretation of fossil DNA does not prove the existence of human emotions or the human soul. Cave paintings, stone tools, and musical instruments, while characteristically human, require proof that they were created in the same dated time period as the discovered bones, and ritualistic burials can only be an assumed human attribute. The assumption that a cave dwelling remained untouched for fifty thousand years, is a bit of a stretch. In any event, there are many ways to interpret fragmented data; and since we were not there, we can only surmise.

My Search For The Truth - Part 8 - Does The Soul Exist? - Continued

Rather than use animals or Neanderthals to make my point about the separateness of the soul and the brain, let's examine Star Trek's android - Data. As you may know from watching Star Trek's - The Next Generation - the android, named Data, has superhuman strength and intelligence, but lacks the human attribute of emotion. Data is an advanced computer that can interact with humans and perform extraordinary tasks, but is constantly confused by human emotions such as fear, love, anger, jealousy, and grief.

From a technical standpoint Data would have the senses of seeing, hearing, smelling, and touching, The sense of taste would be closely linked to smell, in that he might have the equivalent of a mass spectrometer that can define elements and through computer interpretation discern the nature of a substance. The capability of seeing might include three dimensional video camera observations of his surroundings that are interpreted as graphically rendered objects. Seeing could also be enhanced to include x-ray vision. With further refinement, the material nature of objects could be identified. Hearing would be in the form of vibrating air molecules, and with further refinement the directionality of sounds could be discerned. Data's body could also include miniature mechanical nano-sensors that would provide the sensation of touch.

Occasionally Data plays poker with some of the crew members. At one point Data throws his cards in when one of the crew members bluffs Data into thinking that the crew member had a winning hand. This confuses Data since the bluff appears to be irrational. When the bluff is explained to Data, he is able to incorporate the play into future poker games. I find this interesting since I have been fascinated by playing scrabble on my computer. The computer not only has access to the entire dictionary, but it also has the capability of employing strategy. While playing the game, I have the feeling that I am playing with another human. However, because the computer has a distinct advantage, I need to select a level of play that suits my competence level. In other words the computer scales back its capabilities to allow me to compete. My question is not whether the computer can beat me at the game, but rather is the computer capable of inventing a game that humans would enjoy? Furthermore, why would it invent a game in the first place? I can't imagine that Data derives enjoyment from playing poker, since he is incapable of the feeling of enjoyment. And, without understanding the feeling of enjoyment, how could it design a game with human enjoyment as the objective.

So while watching Data in his role on Star Trek, consider that he is an extraordinary machine, and not a human. There is no amount of computer programming that will produce original thoughts or human emotions. Could it be that original thought and human emotions come from the soul?

In one Star trek episode Data discovers that his inventor had made another android named Lar, but Lar has an emotion chip. Having human emotions, superhuman strength, and a superhuman brain, Lar decides to eliminate the inferior human species and create others like himself. This is a problem that some people fear today as android invention evolves. However, this fear is ill founded, since it's inconceivable that any inventor could ever produce an emotion microchip. And, without human emotions, that contain evil thoughts, androids would not have a desire to overthrow humans.

The android could be programmed to act based upon a decision tree that endlessly mimics human behavior, but it would not be acting based upon human type emotional feelings. This is an important concept and one worth remembering; and here's why. If you think that androids can be developed with an ability to have emotions and a free will, you would need to mathematically define esoteric terms like love, hate, ambition, self awareness, jealousy, greed, grief, happiness, joy, sadness, curiosity, embarrassment, desire, appreciation, compassion, altruism, fear, enjoyment, intuition, and the emotions of crying, blushing, sulking, and laughter. You would also need to define the process of original thought and reasoned logic. Because these attributes cannot be defined mathematically, they cannot be programmed. If they cannot be programmed, then what are they? Where do they come from? How can they evolve? If human type emotions are merely a form of programmed neuron connections, why can't humans develop the same programming in today's androids?

There's more -- stay tuned.