A new source for cheap, clean water

I saw this good news in a blog post. I was reading at a science blog and I was shocked to read about the following news reports of a new way to make water drinkable. I had missed this recent news article, from Reuters:

Pentagon weapons-maker finds method for cheap, clean water

(Reuters) – A defense contractor better known for building jet fighters and lethal missiles says it has found a way to slash the amount of energy needed to remove salt from seawater, potentially making it vastly cheaper to produce clean water at a time when scarcity has become a global security issue.

The process, officials and engineers at Lockheed Martin Corp say, would enable filter manufacturers to produce thin carbon membranes with regular holes about a nanometer in size that are large enough to allow water to pass through but small enough to block the molecules of salt in seawater. A nanometer is a billionth of a meter.

They make the filter out of graphene. I had never heard of the stuff. I bet most people have not.

“It’s 500 times thinner than the best filter on the market today and a thousand times stronger,” said John Stetson, the engineer who has been working on the idea. “The energy that’s required and the pressure that’s required to filter salt is approximately 100 times less.”

graphene

Humans are very creative and ingenious. Given cheap energy, we can meet our needs on any front. The need for clean, pure, drinkable water is one resource that has been in the news lately. All kinds of people have been hollering that we are “running out of water“. I even hear that on the news here in Florida which is a swamp from one end to the other, and we live on a big ball of water called the earth. Maybe some don’t know about the oceans because they don’t live near one like I do, but surely they have seen photos.

But potable water, ah, now there is the key. Potable water (drinking water) is needed to support life and to grow crops. If the southwest USA and northern Mexico had a nearly unlimited supply of clean water we could feed the world many times over. Think of it, we could pump sea water out of the Gulf of Mexico and desalt it, thus giving farmers all the water their little hearts and large crops could ever want. Cheap food? Now there is a problem I wish we had.

As proof of the possibility, look at what Israel has done with old style technology. They can clean up 5 gallons of sea water for one cent. That is 500 gallons for a dollar.

cost efficiency isreal desalinationFigure 2. Cost per cubic metre (black) for desalinated water around the world. I have added the cost per 100 US gallons in blue. The four outlined plants are in Israel.

Now it takes large amounts of energy to pump seawater though reverse osmosis filters and so we will still need relatively cheap energy. But with the graphene filters we might see an increase in efficiency of up to a factor of 100 times present methods. That would be up to 50,000 gallons for a dollar.

Since Israel is already desalinating 300,000,000 cubic meters of water per year now and is said to be building capacity to go to 600 million in a few years, we see that the new technology will make desalinating sea water even much more practical than it is now. Tampa Florida is using some seawater now as part of their water management plan. This graphene news can only be great news for everyone: but especially the poor of the world. The poor need clean water and this new advance can make it 100 times cheaper to provide it.

This news also reminds me of the people who keep saying that we are running out of water. That has never been true. We have shortages of pure, clean drinking water in places. We need to develop the technology to clean sea water to meet our needs. This is of course exactly what the new development of the graphene filters means for the reverse osmosis desalination of seawater plants.

But even with this breakthrough, it still takes energy to purify water and if the mindless fraud of “catastrophic man-made global warming” means we can’t use coal or gas then the cost of purified sea water will remain too high for the common man — and especially the poor. The cost of the water is a function of the cost of energy.

If energy is cheap then using endless seawater to turn the deserts green is practical and profitable. If energy is made ultra expensive by the so-called “fact” that CO2 is “poison” then the poor of the world will suffer greatly and many will die.

Advertisements

What Global Warming?

I wrote before that “essentially all climate data has been tampered with over the last decade. Temperature records as well as the records of the rise in sea level have been inflated to show warming that is not there. In the 1990 IPCC report, they showed a 10 cm rise in sea level over the previous century. And yet recent literature shows almost double that rise over the same time period. Unless the “scientists” got a time machine and went back in time to measure the planet again we have to conclude they are lying yet again.” But what about the temperature records? Scientists have tossed many graphs at the public that claim to show the data in pictorial form, and some of the graphs have been notoriously misleading or even fraudulent, but there are many that are very interesting.

We all know that the iconic and debunked “hockey stick” graph, showing temperatures recently shooting up into the stratosphere has been thoroughly discredited and yet millions of people still believe Dr. Mann’s fraud as seen in that horrible fantasy movie by Al Gore who made a billion dollars off of his scare mongering “catastrophic man-made global warming”. There was even a recent “hockey stick” graph by another “scientist” that was published and then debunked within a week. That may have been a record.

But there have been a host of graphs shown to the public and their government masters that are just as important, if not more so, than that famous “hockey stick”. Those graphs, showing how temperatures have changed in recent decades, greatly exaggerate those changes. The “scientists” do this by narrowly focusing just on “temperature anomalies” showing how they have risen and fallen round their average level in the past 30-odd years rather than the actual level of global temperature, as it is measured above freezing point.

Lawrence Solomon recently published in his Financial Post newspaper column a graph showing the temperature changes of the past 15 years in proper perspective. He used figures from the most prestigious of all official temperature records which are compiled by the world famous UK Met Office at its Hadley Centre.

The result is astounding. He included that huge part of the data usually left out and hidden from the view of the public and when he did — his chart shows a line that is virtually flat. Is this the “warming” that we are told will kill us all if we don’t toss Trillions at solutions? Is this the reason we should all live like cavemen to reduce CO2 output? (mother nature generates the vast majority of CO2 by the way)

The actual data show that today’s climate changes are relatively tiny compared with those rises and falls of several whole degrees the world survived in the past. The idea that CO2 is going to kill us all falls victim to the visuals of real world data. Even  Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), James Hansen of Nasa, and the Met Office have all conceded that there has been no warming at all since 1997 while the CO2 levels have continued to rise even faster than before. There has been a small increase in temperature in the last 100 years as the warming started about 200 years ago at the end of the “Little Ice Age”. Simply, we are coming out of the Little Ice Age that began in the early 1300’s.. The warming is a good thing by the way — I want even more of it.

Greenland ice core isotope past 4000 yrs

As this graph shows, modern warming is far below that of the past 4,000 years. Why were the Romans able to thrive in much higher average temperatures and we are now said to be so fragile that we would keel over dead? Follow the money. Government pays handsomely to those who claim that only government can save us from certain catastrophe.

By the way, about 380 to 400 million years ago our earth had an atmosphere with 10 times the present carbon dioxide levels or approximately 4,000 ppm (parts per million). Ten times? Yes, ten times. Those elevated levels did not produce runaway global warming back then so why would we be fooled by computer models into thinking it will happen now simply by our going from 350 ppm to 400 ppm? CO2 is a trace gas.

Plant life thrives under enriched carbon dioxide levels and commercial greenhouse operations provide elevated C02 for better plant growth. Evolution tells us that plants must have evolved in elevated CO2 if they respond so well to increased CO2 concentrations.

The Daily Mail in the UK has a good article today on this issue:

Geology tells us that fossil fuels are predominantly carbon which was part of our atmosphere before being locked away in the earth millions of years ago. At that time, there were more than 4,000 carbon parts per million (ppm) in the atmosphere. Over time this has been as low as 270ppm and is now about 385ppm. It is obvious the world can live with these fluctuations in the level of atmospheric carbon. There is a correlation between temperature and CO2, but some of my colleagues have put the cart before the horse.

The evidence shows CO2 levels follow temperature, not the other way around. Indeed, there may be many factors that determine our climate. Australian scientist David Archibald has shown  a remarkable correlation between the sun’s activity and our climate over the past 300 years. Climate scientists insist we must accept the ‘carbon’ orthodoxy or be cast into the wilderness.

But the scientists behind  the theory have a vested interest – it’s a great way to justify new taxes, get more money and guarantee themselves more work.

The reality is that man-made global warming is a myth: the global temperature is well within life’s limits and, indeed, the present day is cooler by comparison to much of Earth’s history. Perhaps this will be the moment that this fact becomes the new scientific orthodoxy.

It is time to put this fraud behind us and to worry about real environmental concerns. Pollution is still a problem; but CO2 is not pollution. I hope that soon this issue is retired to the trash-bin of bad ideas.

A Market Anarchist as Tree Hugger

A friend on Twitter asked me a to comment on the idea of what would happen if we had anarchy and someone wanted to cut down all the trees. She then went on to say that she was concerned about the environment and how that would be handled in the absence of government. I don’t claim to be an expert or fortune teller but I will give my thoughts on environmental issues and government.

This issue reminded me of the day I was sitting with my father sometime in the 70s watching a special on TV about the polluted environment and how we needed to clean it up. They showed various companies and were using the examples to show how we needed stronger laws to make all those dirty bastards clean up. I made some comment on how those companies were just terrible for doing that sort of thing to the environment and that they needed to be sued. My dad was a union member and a Democrat so I was surprised when he said that the biggest despoiler of the environment was the Government. He cited the government installations at Oak Ridge, Tennessee as his main example and then he went on to talk about all the cites that were dumping raw sewage into the Tennessee river at the time. There are numerous other examples. (or see here)

Over the years many people have pointed out the huge environmental mistakes of the governments around the world. It turns out that the stronger the government the worse the government is for conservation of the environment. Even if anarchy is not perfect, the record says that government is a far greater danger.

Now after five decades of observing the greens, it looks like the “environmentalist” is often just a communist hiding behind a green facade. The best description I have seen is “a watermelon;  green on the outside, red on the inside”.  They hate free market capitalism and private property with an unbridled passion and use the environment as their stalking horse. In contrast to the watermelons, a conservationist is one who is genuinely concerned about conserving natural resources. I have been a conservationist all my life.

4872965_700b

I believe we should be good stewards of the earth’s bounty. The question is: how can we best accomplish that goal while remaining free, peaceful, and prosperous? There seems to be two essential claims of the environmentalists. They say that continued economic progress is impossible because of the impending exhaustion of natural resources. Peak oil is just one specific example of this. The slogan “reduce, reuse, recycle” that some use is an example of this sort of thinking. The other claim is that continued economic progress is destructive of the environment and we must return to a more primitive time even though that might mean the death of billions of people now alive on this planet.

The essential policy prescription of the environmental movement is the prohibition of free and self-interested individual action. They want to make the government strong and dictatorial. Heck, they want the return of the USSR. The leading example of this policy prescription at the present is the attempt to force people to give up all sorts of things due to the fraudulent claims that CO2 is a poison that will destroy life on this planet. They want to force individuals to give up such things as their automobiles and air conditioners on the ridiculous idea that they cause catastrophic, runaway global warming that will melt the ice at the poles and drown us all. This same example is just the present leading chicken little scenario of the alleged dangers of economic progress but there have been many others and there will be more once the claims of global warming fall to observations of the real world.

Scientific and technological progress will render some “basic necessities” obsolete as progress continues. After all, do you burn whale oil in lamps to read by at night? Besides, new technologies have us swimming in oil and natural gas as I write this. Nature presents the earth as an immense solidly packed ball of resources and it has also provided comparably incredible amounts of energy in connection with this mass of chemical elements. Given laissez-faire freed markets, man’s ingenuity, and scientific progress we will continue to provide goods and services sufficient to meet our needs.

OK, OK; but what about all those trees that my friend was worried about?

In an anarchy where the resources are owned by some individual or group of individuals, the incentive is to conserve the resource, just like companies try to maintain all their capital equipment now. Since strong government is the recipe for environmental disaster, it follows that the less of it the better. No individual or company would destroy all the trees since that would destroy their income. It is to their economic advantage to conserve the product they sell. Besides the incentives involved, there is also the spectre of millions of people boycotting these companies if it became common knowledge that they were despoiling the environment.

To me the main point is how would a polluter by handled by private libertarian courts in a market anarchist world. It is obvious that anyone whose property was despoiled due to the polluter’s actions would be able to sue the pants off the bastards and get restitution. At some point the polluter will clean up his act or else the people that he wrongs will end up owning his business and stop it themselves. Is this perfect? No, there has to be pollution first, an aggrieved party to bring lawsuit, and only then restitution. But that beats hell out of the present highly corrupt and inefficient system that favors the large corporations who pollute rather than the people who have to live with the pollution.

For a more detailed (and long) account of how the free market protects the environment see here.

When backed by effective liability laws, private property rights tend to work well. Because well-tended property increases its value, private owners generally take care not to despoil their land.

This safeguard works even when owners care only for themselves, not for their heirs. For at the very first signs of poor stewardship–the first indications of land erosion, for instance–appraisers and potential buyers can project the results into the future, and the value of the property declines immediately.

With an effective liability system, these pressures can also keep corporations from despoiling land or property that they do not own. Although disputes occur, the obligations of those who harm others’ property are so widely accepted that many people do not even have to go to court when their cars are damaged: insurance companies generally handle such cases routinely.

Until man’s nature changes and he becomes like the angels, we will not see a Utopia on earth and we will not see everyone act just as we wish they would; but the closest we will come is by a system that encourages free-will, voluntary cooperation among men: anarchy in other words.

Science Propaganda is used to Control You

I have mentioned before that the government and the ruling class need “intellectuals” and other opinion makers (like the press) to convince the underclass general population that government is good for us or at least it is necessary. One of the ways that the intellectual class is helping to sell the myth that government is necessary is by having “scientists” claim that we are all going to die if we don’t demand that government control us and save us from “cataclysmic man-made global warming” caused by our release of the “poison” CO2.

But is it true that the earth is warming? Yes it is. The planet has warmed and cooled for millions of years and we know that the planet has been warming since the glaciers retreated from North America. We are in an interglacial period and thank the gods! A world warmer than the terrible cold of a glacial period  is much better for life.

But what about the temperatures recently? Essentially all climate data has been tampered with over the last decade.  Temperature records as well as the records of the rise in sea level have been inflated to show warming that is not there. In the 1990 IPCC report, they showed a 10 cm rise in sea level over the previous century.  And yet recent literature shows almost double that rise over the same time period. Unless the “scientists” got a time machine and went back in time to measure the planet again we have to conclude they are lying yet again. They claim they are “adjusting” the data and I wrote about that once. When I was in school the professors called that sort of thing cheating and fraud. I think it is still fraud. Never adjust the data to match your preconceived beliefs.

But is the planet warming? The planet has been warming since the end of the last glacial period. There were glaciers over the north east U.S. that were 3 to 4 km thick according to Wikipedia. They tell us about the current ice age:

The current ice age, the Pliocene-Quaternary glaciation, started about 2.58 million years ago during the late Pliocene, when the spread of ice sheets in the Northern Hemisphere began. Since then, the world has seen cycles of glaciation with ice sheets advancing and retreating on 40,000- and 100,000-year time scales called glacial periods, glacials or glacial advances, and interglacial periods, interglacials or glacial retreats. The earth is currently in an interglacial, and the last glacial period ended about 10,000 years ago. All that remains of the continental ice sheets are the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets and smaller glaciers such as on Baffin Island.

The alarmists never want to discuss the unadjusted data or the records of the past over the longer time line that shows that what we are experiencing now is nothing unusual. NASA (run by activist Jim Hansen) has been caught numerous times changing the records in the 30s. How does one justify changing the temperature records in the distant past? Time machine?

But what about the Arctic ice all melting? Surely that can’t be fraud also! An Investors Business Daily Article noted that:

If the alarmists are getting only limited cooperation from man, they are getting even less from nature itself. Arctic sea ice, which sent the green shirts into a lather when it hit a record low in the summer of 2012, has “with a few weeks of growth still to occur … blown away the previous record for ice gain this winter.”

“This is only the third winter in history,” when more than 10 million square kilometers of new ice has formed in the Arctic, Real Science reported on Tuesday, using data from Arctic Climate Research at the University of Illinois.

At the same time, the Antarctic “is now approaching 450 days of uninterrupted above normal ice area,” says the skeptical website Watts Up With That, which, also using University of Illinois Arctic Climate Research data, notes that “the last time the Antarctic sea ice was below normal” was Nov. 22, 2011.

But what about the famous 97% “consensus” of all scientists that CO2 is poisonous and that we are all going to fry or drown? More fraud, debunked many times. The “consensus” from the 1970′s was that cold and ice were in our future. The linked video is actually quite a good, which shows how different perceptions were, only a few decades ago. It is narrated by Spock (Leonard Nimoy). Another very short video shows that contrary to the conventional wisdom today, the real danger facing humanity is not global warming, but more likely the coming of a new Ice Age. What we live in now is known as an interglacial. Nothing unusual has happened since either of these videos were made. The global temperature has changed by less than during most of the Holocene. Temperatures have been essentially flat for the past 16 years. But the public’s perceptions have changed, due to the relentless propaganda.

Speaking of propaganda, the president gave a State of the Union speech recently and here is some of the propaganda in Obama’s speech.

Now, it’s true that no single event makes a trend. But the fact is, the 12 hottest years on record have all come in the last 15. Heat waves, droughts, wildfires, floods, all are now more frequent and more intense. We can choose to believe that Superstorm Sandy, and the most severe drought in decades, and the worst wildfires some states have ever seen were all just a freak coincidence. Or we can choose to believe in the overwhelming judgment of science and act before it’s too late.

Here’s Marc Morano’s devastating point by point rebuttal. Obama’s war on climate change is a war against a mirage. There is no warming to be concerned about at present and the warming that we saw in the 80s and 90s is part of the natural cycle of climate change. Obama is selling a theory that only exists in the discredited computer projections of a shameless cabal of grant-eating activist “scientists” increasingly out of touch with real world data. They function as “intellectuals” who help sell the myth that we need government to protect us.

onethreeonesix.ashx

The problem with climate models and adjusted records

I don’t often write about the “catastrophic man-made global warming” issue, but today I wanted to say a few words about the “adjustments” in the record, computer models, cherry picking, and what that means to climate predictions. I don’t have time at present to do any links, this is just a short rant and my opinion. I hope to do a much longer piece this summer when I have more free time.

Many modern climate “scientists” (I speak of the alarmists here) are paying more attention to their computer models than they are to the actual real world data. And when they do use collected data it is “adjusted” data that for some reason is always adjusted higher in the present and lower in the past. That is most convenient for them.

The real problem though seems to be that they take temperatures from 1980 to 2000 and compare those readings to the CO2 increase during that span and come up with a climate sensitivity number. But if you add 2000-2010 to the equations then climate become less “sensitive”. In fact, the climate shows no warming with rising CO2 during the 2000s at all.

The climate scientists could have gone back to 1910 to 2000 and compared temperature change to CO2 increase. If they had done that then they would have come up with a far less sensitivity to CO2; or possibly even no sensitivity at all. They intentionally picked a portion of the temperature record where the slope of the curve was close to the slope of CO2 increase and decided that there was a cause and effect relationship.This cherry picking was called fraud when I was in school many years ago; but somehow these “scientists” see no problem with coming up with a hypothesis and fudging data to support it.

The scientists could have noticed that the change in temperature from 1910 to 1940, using unadjusted data, was nearly identical to the the change in temperature from 1975 to 2005 and the curve of CO2 change was quite different during the two periods. Somehow this obvious fact was overlooked in their rush to claim that we are all headed toward a climate Armageddon if we don’t give them Billions in grant money and enable the governments to force us to freeze in the dark by cutting back on energy use.

But now with the lack of any warming (or even cooling) of the last 16 years they are being forced to explain the lack of recent change, even as they are going back into the databases and altering them to remove the previous rise to create the illusion of continued warming. They are “adjusting” the databases and in a couple of decades the record will look back at our time and reflect no stop in warming at all. In other words, I have little doubt that 20 years from now we will see in the databases that warming never stopped after 2000. The hiatus in warming will simply be adjusted away as if it never happened.

The CO2 is poison mantra has become a religion with these scientists and their “environmentalists” supporters. There does not seem to be any way to talk logic to them since it is now a religion with them. No matter what the present weather is they holler global warming did it! Record highs, record lows, no snow, record snow, people freezing, people getting hit with a hurricane, record low in hurricane strikes, or whatever … anything at all is proof to them that the world is in danger due to the activities of man.

These charlatans are destroying real science.

3150-0171-542x300

Prozac kids: the dangers of SSRI drugs

I have been reading a lot on the present gun control debate that has sprung up since the the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings. Then I read a headline that said, “New Mexico Teen Fatally Shoots 2 Adults, 3 Children Inside Home” and this question popped into my mind: was this kid on prescription anti-depressants like so many other child killers? Many people have been saying for some time that far to many kids are put on brain altering drugs.

The SSRI class of drugs:

The first drug in the class known as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) hit the U.S. market in 1988 under the brand name Prozac. By 2005, antidepressants like Prozac had become the most prescribed drugs in the country. Today, about a dozen SSRIs are prescribed, including Paxil, Zoloft and Prozac.

People have also been saying for some time that kids on drugs in the dangerous SSRI class of drugs are prone to violent outbursts and are potential mass killers along with many, many other potential problems.

Many medical and legal professionals believe antidepressant manufacturers need to be held accountable for not fully informing patients about what could happen to them and their babies if they take these prescription medicines.

There are even some academic papers published in the journals on the danger to the young patient whose doctor prescribes these brain altering medications for them. An interesting short history of SSRIs and their dangerous side effects by a legal office can be seen here.

I am inclined to believe that the SSRI drugs do have a major impact on the numbers of mass murders and acts of barbarism that we see today. It can not just be guns because we have always had many guns in this country and we have far, far more gun control laws today than we did 50 years ago; and we have much more violence than in the past.

Is the widespread use of SSRI drugs the only problem? I don’t think do. I think it is just one aspect of a deteriorating and sick culture than has been poisoned by the organized violence of the state itself. We have been at war, overt or covert, on an ongoing basis for decades. The modern violence of our brutal overseas occupations or the violence of our SWAT team no-knock raids on families across this land are examples of a few men killing or threatening to kill the “bad guys”. I think that is a role model that many of our young come to accept as the “way its done”. This is reinforced by TV, movies, music, and electronic games.

There are other factors and it would take an entire book to explore this topic fully; but I have outlined my concerns. The SSRI drugs seem to be some kind of trigger that sets off certain young people to commit unspeakably acts of violence against groups of innocent people. I also think that if some can be caused to commit horrific atrocities by these drugs then many others may just exhibit anti-social behaviour that we see everywhere we look around us. I think a full investigation of the effects of the SSRIs are in order. I also think that the big pharmaceutical companies are too powerful to allow it. We shall see.

The below list of SSRI connected atrocities was seen at whatreallyhappened.com:

Eric Harris age 17 (first on Zoloft then Luvox) and Dylan Klebold aged 18 (Colombine school shooting in Littleton, Colorado), killed 12 students and 1 teacher, and wounded 23 others, before killing themselves. Klebold’s medical records have never been made available to the public.

Jeff Weise, age 16, had been prescribed 60 mg/day of Prozac (three times the average starting dose for adults!) when he shot his grandfather, his grandfather’s girlfriend and many fellow students at Red Lake, Minnesota. He then shot himself. 10 dead, 12 wounded.

Cory Baadsgaard, age 16, Wahluke (Washington state) High School, was on Paxil (which caused him to have hallucinations) when he took a rifle to his high school and held 23 classmates hostage. He has no memory of the event.

Chris Fetters, age 13, killed his favorite aunt while taking Prozac.

Christopher Pittman, age 12, murdered both his grandparents while taking Zoloft.

Mathew Miller, age 13, hung himself in his bedroom closet after taking Zoloft for 6 days.

Jarred Viktor, age 15, stabbed his grandmother 61 times after 5 days on Paxil.

Kip Kinkel, age 15, (on Prozac and Ritalin) shot his parents while they slept then went to school and opened fire killing 2 classmates and injuring 22 shortly after beginning Prozac treatment.

Luke Woodham, age 16 (Prozac) killed his mother and then killed two students, wounding six others.

A boy in Pocatello, ID (Zoloft) in 1998 had a Zoloft-induced seizure that caused an armed stand off at his school.

Michael Carneal (Ritalin), age 14, opened fire on students at a high school prayer meeting in West Paducah, Kentucky. Three teenagers were killed, five others were wounded.

A young man in Huntsville, Alabama (Ritalin) went psychotic chopping up his parents with an ax and also killing one sibling and almost murdering another.

Andrew Golden, age 11, (Ritalin) and Mitchell Johnson, aged 14, (Ritalin) shot 15 people, killing four students, one teacher, and wounding 10 others.

TJ Solomon, age 15, (Ritalin) high school student in Conyers, Georgia opened fire on and wounded six of his class mates.

Rod Mathews, age 14, (Ritalin) beat a classmate to death with a bat.

James Wilson, age 19, (various psychiatric drugs) from Breenwood, South Carolina, took a .22 caliber revolver into an elementary school killing two young girls, and wounding seven other children and two teachers.

Elizabeth Bush, age 13, (Paxil) was responsible for a school shooting in Pennsylvania

Jason Hoffman (Effexor and Celexa) – school shooting in El Cajon, California

Jarred Viktor, age 15, (Paxil), after five days on Paxil he stabbed his grandmother 61 times.

Chris Shanahan, age 15 (Paxil) in Rigby, ID who out of the blue killed a woman.

Jeff Franklin (Prozac and Ritalin), Huntsville, AL, killed his parents as they came home from work using a sledge hammer, hatchet, butcher knife and mechanic’s file, then attacked his younger brothers and sister.

Neal Furrow (Prozac) in LA Jewish school shooting reported to have been court-ordered to be on Prozac along with several other medications.

Kevin Rider, age 14, was withdrawing from Prozac when he died from a gunshot wound to his head.

Initially it was ruled a suicide, but two years later, the investigation into his death was opened as a possible homicide. The prime suspect, also age 14, had been taking Zoloft and other SSRI antidepressants.

Alex Kim, age 13, hung himself shortly after his Lexapro prescription had been doubled.

Diane Routhier was prescribed Welbutrin for gallstone problems. Six days later, after suffering many adverse effects of the drug, she shot herself.

Billy Willkomm, an accomplished wrestler and a University of Florida student, was prescribed Prozac at the age of 17. His family found him dead of suicide – hanging from a tall ladder at the family’s Gulf Shore Boulevard home in July 2002.

Kara Jaye Anne Fuller-Otter, age 12, was on Paxil when she hung herself from a hook in her closet.

Kara’s parents said “…. the damn doctor wouldn’t take her off it and I asked him to when we went in on the second visit. I told him I thought she was having some sort of reaction to Paxil…”)

Gareth Christian, Vancouver, age 18, was on Paxil when he committed suicide in 2002,(Gareth’s father could not accept his son’s death and killed himself.)

Julie Woodward, age 17, was on Zoloft when she hung herself in her family’s detached garage.

Matthew Miller was 13 when he saw a psychiatrist because he was having difficulty at school. The psychiatrist gave him samples of Zoloft. Seven days later his mother found him dead, hanging by a belt from a laundry hook in his closet.

Kurt Danysh, age 18, and on Prozac, killed his father with a shotgun. He is now behind prison bars, and writes letters, trying to warn the world that SSRI drugs can kill.

Woody ____, age 37, committed suicide while in his 5th week of taking Zoloft. Shortly before his death his physician suggested doubling the dose of the drug. He had seen his physician only for insomnia. He had never been depressed, nor did he have any history of any mental illness symptoms.

A boy from Houston, age 10, shot and killed his father after his Prozac dosage was increased.

Hammad Memon, age 15, shot and killed a fellow middle school student. He had been diagnosed with ADHD and depression and was taking Zoloft and “other drugs for the conditions.”

Matti Saari, a 22-year-old culinary student, shot and killed 9 students and a teacher, and wounded another student, before killing himself. Saari was taking an SSRI and a benzodiazapine.

Steven Kazmierczak, age 27, shot and killed five people and wounded 21 others before killing himself in a Northern Illinois University auditorium. According to his girlfriend, he had recently been taking Prozac, Xanax and Ambien. Toxicology results showed that he still had trace amounts of Xanax in his system.

Finnish gunman Pekka-Eric Auvinen, age 18, had been taking antidepressants before he killed eight people and wounded a dozen more at Jokela High School – then he committed suicide.

Asa Coon from Cleveland, age 14, shot and wounded four before taking his own life. Court records show Coon was on Trazodone.

Jon Romano, age 16, on medication for depression, fired a shotgun at a teacher in his New York high school.

That list is not positive proof of course; but it is food for thought and evidence we need a full investigation.

Correlation and the method of science

We teach in statistics that correlation does not prove causation. There is good reason for this. Consider the following words I found in a thread someplace.

Science doesn’t “count” the number of times something is shown to be true as proof that it is true. Science only counts the number of times something is shown to be false. If that number is greater than zero, then it is false.

The reason for this is at the heart of the scientific method. You can always find for example tall, red-headed men as proof that red hair makes men tall. If you pay people lots of money to do studies to find just such a correlation, you will end up with thousands of studies showing that red hair makes men tall.

However, the fact that there are thousands of studies showing that red hair makes men tall doesn’t make it true. What makes it likely is that you cannot find a single short man with red hair. However, if you do find a single short man with red hair, then this is proof that the theory is wrong, red hair doesn’t make men tall.

What is being “denied” when you count studies is the scientific method. We “count” in politics. The number of “yes” votes versus the number of “no” votes. So, when you talk about the “vast majority” you are talking politics, not science.

When you use the term “denier” this is not science, it is a form of propaganda in support of politics. The term “denier” has political meaning as in “holocaust denier”. It has no scientific meaning. In science the term is “skeptical” because the history of science shows that 95% of what we believe to be true today will eventually be shown to be false.

Today we believe matter is made from quarks, yesterday we believed it was made from atoms, and tomorrow, who can predict what we will find? Every time we think we “know” the truth we are surprised to find that there is yet another “truth” underneath. And every time we look, we find yet another truth under that.

The above came in a thread on a climate science debate but could easily have been from most any science debate.  Unfortunately we have to deal with fraud as well as mistaken understanding of the method of science and what science can do. Since the only empirical evidence showing correlation between CO2 and temperature shows that CO2 follows temperature and not vice-versa how then can we explain the modern anti-science belief in just the opposite?  Over the course of human history (the Quaternary) climate has constantly changed in cycles of varying lengths. Climate in the past 2.5 million years of our genus has gone from much warmer than today to much colder, repeatedly. Same goes for past 200,000 years of our species & subspecies. Cycles. Every time we look at the past on a long term scale we see cycles of climate change. It is just the Tao of climate.

The phrase “climate change” must mean constant cycles happening without much input from man. That is unless mankind wants to pretend he is the very reason for creation like he did in times gone by.

I wonder how a people who have more per capita college graduates that ever before can be so ignorant of the scientific method and the proper use of statistics.

Scientific_method