Solar Tote

This is kind of cute but expensive ($274). I don't know if I'm out in the sun enough to charge it enough to a usable level. They also have a satchel for guys that is even more expensive ($412).

Do you see the dancer spinning clock-wise or counter clock-wise

Clock-wise means you use the right side of your brain more and counter-clock wise means you use the left side more. Here's a list of left and right brain functions.

I see it spinning both ways.

Wired's Top 10 Scientific Breakthroughs of 2007

Here. I agree with their choice for number one.

1. Researchers Turn Skin Cells to Stem Cells

Using a virus to reprogram skin cells, two teams of scientists managed to skirt the greatest ethical issue facing regenerative medicine -- the destruction of human embryos. Groups led by Shinya Yamanaka of Kyoto University and Junying Yu of the University of Wisconsin coaxed a type of skin cell called fibroblasts into forming muscle, heart, fat and nerve tissues without using any eggs. Unfortunately, the hijacked cells often became tumors. Following up on his initial discovery this November, Yamanaka told Nature Biotechnology that by inserting three growth genes instead of four, the lab-grown flesh can be controlled without becoming cancerous.

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant

So, here is a study that goes against Al Gore, et al. What do you global warming enthusiasts do with this?

An inconvenient new peer-reviewed study published in the December 2007 issue of the International Journal of Climatology.

Climate scientists at the University of Rochester, the University of Alabama, and the University of Virginia report that observed patterns of temperature changes (‘fingerprints’) over the last thirty years are not in accord with what greenhouse models predict and can better be explained by natural factors, such as solar variability. Therefore, climate change is ‘unstoppable’ and cannot be affected or modified by controlling the emission of greenhouse gases, such as CO2, as is proposed in current legislation.

These results are in conflict with the conclusions of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and also with some recent research publications based on essentially the same data. However, they are supported by the results of the US-sponsored Climate Change Science Program (CCSP).

[...]

Co-author S. Fred Singer said: “The current warming trend is simply part of a natural cycle of climate warming and cooling that has been seen in ice cores, deep-sea sediments, stalagmites, etc., and published in hundreds of papers in peer-reviewed journals. The mechanism for producing such cyclical climate changes is still under discussion; but they are most likely caused by variations in the solar wind and associated magnetic fields that affect the flux of cosmic rays incident on the earth’s atmosphere. In turn, such cosmic rays are believed to influence cloudiness and thereby control the amount of sunlight reaching the earth’s surface and thus the climate.” Our research demonstrates that the ongoing rise of atmospheric CO2 has only a minor influence on climate change. We must conclude, therefore, that attempts to control CO2 emissions are ineffective and pointless. – but very costly.

(via)

A Fluorescent Kitty

How cute!

The Gyeongsang National University researchers, led by Prof. Kong Il-keun, modified the genes of Turkish Angora cats so that a red protein would glow in their skin when exposed to ultraviolet light, the paper reports.

The scientists modified the skin cells of the mother cat by using a virus to make the protein fluoresce, according to the Times.

(via)

Curvy women are cleverer too

And researchers believe this is why men find them more attractive. Yeah, I buy that:

IT was already known that men find curvy women more attractive and that they live longer. Now research suggests that women with an hourglass figure are brighter and have cleverer children, too.

The study found that women with large hips and small waists are more intelligent than those with either “apple-shaped” or linear bodies.

The paper, to be published in the journal Evolution and Human Behaviour this week, suggests that such women give birth to more intelligent children - possibly a result of higher levels of omega3 fatty acids on the hips.

The researchers believe that the results offer a new explanation for why many men find curvy women more alluring.

[...]

In the research, scientists at the Universities of Pittsburgh and California, Santa Barbara, used data from a study of 16,000 women and girls, which collected details of their body measurements and their scores in cognitive tests. They found that those women with a greater difference between the waist and hips scored significantly higher on the tests, as did their children.

Such women are not necessarily skinny. What is important is that their waist should be smaller than their hips, with the ideal ratio being between 0.6 and 0.7.

(via)

Jumping the Gun on Global Warming

"Every time I look around, it's in my face" are the lyrics to this catchy song from a few years ago that I keep singing in my head.

Might have nothing to do with global warming, per se, but it does seem apropos to me with how much attention global warming is getting these days.

My daughter was assigned to bring in two current event articles, her topic of choice: global warming. In my French class today, guess what we talked about? Global warming. What happened in the senate today? A Global warming bill advanced. It's everywhere!

Just about everyone has an opinion about this issue. My belief is that there may be signs that our planet has gotten warmer, marginally at best, but no one can prove it is man-made. Tsk, tsk me if you must, but that's my opinion.

And that's just it. All this global warming "science" is based on opinion or presumption, not fact.

Science cannot be based on a consensus it must be based on fact. I think we are jumping the gun on what we need to do about global warming.

I agree with The Anchoress' logic:

I think what’s happening is natural - it’s happened before - and only our generation is conceited enough to think that it’s all due to “us” or that “we” can do much about it. That’s not to say that conservation measures are not useful - they are, and I practice many of them in my life. But common sense says before we go off half cocked, creating laws and affecting governments and personal liberties, it behooves us to take a longer, closer, much more open-minded look at this thing and not simply submit to alarmism.

Let's also consider these words written in the WSJ by John R. Christy, one of the recipients of the Nobel prize. He is not convinced that the current global warming science proves much, yet:

Mother Nature simply operates at a level of complexity that is, at this point, beyond the mastery of mere mortals (such as scientists) and the tools available to us. As my high-school physics teacher admonished us in thosewe-shall-conquer-the-world-with-a-slide-rule days, "Begin all of your scientific pronouncements with 'At our present level of ignorance, we think we know . . .'"

I haven't seen that type of climate humility lately. Rather I see jump-to-conclusions advocates and, unfortunately, some scientists who see in every weather anomaly the specter of a global-warming apocalypse. Explaining each successive phenomenon as a result of human action gives them comfort and an easy answer.

I'm sure he won't popular with his scientist buddies, but his prudent and humble approach to global warming is really a breath of fresh air.

Whatever is decided to be done about global warming, it needs to be done judiciously and carefully. Going around like a bunch of Chicken Little's just won't help.

Lennox-Dawkins Debate

It looks like Dawkins meet his match in a debate that took place on Oct. 3 in Alabama of all places. He debated John Lennox, a professor of mathematics and philosophy at Oxford (Dawkins is also an Oxford Don). It looks like they kept each on their toes:

A highly publicized, sold-out debate on God at UAB turned into a lively joust Wednesday night between Oxford University scholars who took turns driving each other onto the defensive.

Scientist and atheist author Richard Dawkins came to the Bible Belt to debate the existence of God with his fellow scholar John Lennox, a professor of mathematics and philosophy.

"We all of us share a reverence for the beauty of the universe," Dawkins said. "You want to attribute it to a maker, a creator."

But the feeling of awe can best be explained by science, he said. "Religious explanations are now superseded and outdated."

[...]

"God, far from being a delusion, is real," Lennox said. "What divides us is not science. We're both for it. It's world views. Which is a delusion? Atheism or Christianity?"

[...]

The exchanges were sometimes sharp and funny when the speakers were allowed to directly address each other. Lennox suggested Dawkins believed that his wife loved him, but it's not scientifically provable. "Is there any evidence for that?" Lennox said.

"Yes, plenty of evidence," Dawkins said. "Never mind about my wife."

At another point, Lennox said, "Atheism is a faith as well." Dawkins retorted, "It's not," and hung his head, shaking it.

"I believe God created the universe; you believe the universe is all there is - those are both statements of belief," Lennox said.

I think this is the most telling admission and one that Hitchens might want to keep in mind:

Dawkins ended the debate there. "Although we can't disprove there is a god, it is very, very unlikely indeed."

Ultimately that is the single most important fact: science cannot disprove God. That's a fact and beyond dispute.

Here's another take on the debate:

"The point about teaching children that faith is a virtue is that you're teaching them that you don't have to justify what you do, you can simply shelter behind the statement 'that's my faith and you're not to question that,'" Dawkins argued.

He said what he objects is the convention that society has bought into, that religious faith is something to be respected and not questioned. "Faith is a terrible weapon because it justifies the performance of terrible acts," said Dawkins as he imagined a world without religion.

Lennox agreed with the danger of teaching children to be fanatics by not allowing them to question, but he asked the audience to imagine a world without atheism, without Stalin, Mao Zedong and Pol Pot and the thousands of churches that were destroyed.

You contend that the teachings of modern religion are an open invitation to extremism," said Lennox. "Well, that is not true of the teachings of Christ, I can't speak for other religions but what about the modern teaching of atheism?"

Clarifying his remarks, Dawkins said he was not trying to say all religious people do bad things. And atheism may have even been an integral part of the Marxism that led Stalin and other infamous atheist despots to do terrible acts, but Dawkins stressed that atrocities are never committed in the name of atheism while that's not the case for religion.

"If you really, really believe that your god, Allah, whoever it is, wants you to do something and go to heaven or go to paradise if you do it, then it's possible for an entirely logical, rational person to do hideous things," he explained. "I cannot conceive of a logical path that would lead one to say 'because I am an atheist, therefore, it is rational for me to kill.'"

Make sure you read both articles because I only took snippets.

And here's is a live blog of the debate.

Here's the first part of the debate (the rest are up at YouTube):

(via)