The Lowdown on Anthropogenic Global Warming / Climate Change

As a registered statistician and well-educated scientist (3 degrees and 37 years of experience), I’ve been all over the IPCC’s and others’ data they use to justify the claim that rising CO2 levels are responsible for global warming. Here’s what I found:
1. There is indeed evidence that the Earth has gone through a warming period over the last 70 years, one that was interrupted for at least 12 of the 18 years since the turn of the century.
2. There is indeed evidence that CO2 levels have also risen during the last 70 years.
3. CO2 is indeed a “greenhouse gas,” meaning it tends to trap a portion of IR (infrared) radiation (heat) from being radiated back into space.
4. CO2 is by no means the most potent greenhouse gas out there. In fact, both water and methane are far more potent.
5. While animal husbandry does produce some methane, termites and microbes produce far more, and deforestation is a leading cause as it interrupts the biological role of methane in the environment.
6. Patterns of atmospheric H2O have been significantly changed by aviation. In gaseous (invisible) form, water vapor is a potent greenhouse gas. In condensate and crystallized (cloud) form, H2O reflects sunlight back into space, but it also reflect Earth’s IR energy back to the ground. In most instances, clouds retain more heat to Earth than they protect Earth from acquiring. Both the shape and altitude of the clouds determine the net IR energy flow.
7. While CO2 and global warming over the last 70 years are correlated, there is no statistical evidence that either one has caused the other.
8. The amount of global warming occurring over the last 70 years is minuscule as compared to the temperature swings associated with the comings and goings of ice ages.
9. Prior to the start of the last ice age, the temperature also took a sharp, but small and short swing upward, and it, too, was accompanied by a short rise in CO2 levels.
10. We’re about due for another ice age.
11. Scientists still discount the role of sunspots, despite the fact that sunspots are strongly correlated with Earth mean temperatures. Since the Earth is certainly not affecting the cycle of the Sun’s sunspots, simple deduction says that sunspots do affect Earth’s climate.
12. Scientists who study the dynamics of sunspot formation have determined that sunspots are formed by the Sun’s magnetic activity, which undergoes periodic cyclical change.
13. Indications are strong that the Sun is close to entering a period quiessence, where very few sunspots would form, thereby resulting in an accompanying cooling period — even an ice age — here on Earth.
My recommandation: Hyper-insulate your house and stock up on snow shovels. Even if you wind up not needing the shovels, you’ll save on cooling. 🙂


Isn’t it strange the way things can change
The life that you lead turned on its head
Suddenly someone means more than you felt before
Her house and its yard turns into home

I’m sorry but I meant to say
Many things along the way
So this ones for you

Have I told you I ache
Have I told you I ache
Have I told you I ache for you?

Have I told you I ache
Have I told you I ache/and I hope its not too late
Have I told you I ache/Can I hold you and ache for you?

The hours that it took writing words for my book
Seems to have broken in half
The gate that i shut last time i got hurt
Seems to have opened itself

Oh the world its spinning now
Its trying to catch me up
And tell me to appreciate
The here and now

I’m sorry but i meant to say
Many things along the way
So this ones for you

Have I told you I ache
Have I told you I ache
Have I told you I ache for you?

Have I told you I ache
Have I told you I ache/and I hope its not too late
Have I told you I ache/Can I hold you and ache for you?

James Carrington
Live at Strange Brew Coffee House
Starkville’s House of El Podcast

We KNOW how to secure the schools – WHY AREN’T YOU LISTENING???

Anyone who has ever worked at a bank, guarded a military arsenal, flightline, or transportation yard, arranged security for kids on a field trip, or lifeguarded pools KNOWS how to secure schools so this NEVER HAPPENS AGAIN. Thing of it is, we’ve known this for decades, and some schools in our nation are VERY secure. They’re not prisons. The physical, human, and procedural protections in place keep bad people out. SO, here’s some questions, libtards:
1. Since we know how to secure schools, why was the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT NOT SECURE???
2. Since we know how to secure schools, why was the Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, FL NOT SECURE???
3. Since we know how to secure schools, why was the Santa Fe High School in Santa Fe, TX NOT SECURE???
I’ll tell you why: Because properly securing schools, as has been successfully done throughout the United States, requires, among other things, ARMED GUARDS. These ARMED GUARDS can be law enforcement officers fulfilling their duty as School Resource Officers, armed security, or armed teachers. By far the cheapest solution are carefully selected and trained armed teachers under the supervision of a School Resource Officer who floats between schools.
The problem with liberals, however, is that their “no firearms under any circumstances” policies leave our kids vulnerable. Liberals are like Jar-Jar Binks saying, “Meesa give up,” the perfect target for the mentally disturbed mass shooters.
Since those of us who have been trained and tasked with securing high-value assets have long known how to secure those assets, why is mainstream media listening to children who have NO SUCH TRAINING OR EXPERIENCE???
Do you want to solve the problem, or not? Every indication you’re providing says, “Not,” which raises the question as to how culpable the media has been by failing, if not outright refusing, on how to properly secure our children.
So long as the media refuses to listen, it’s likely schools will continue to ignorantly put our children at risk.  Do not let them!  They’re YOUR kids, not the media’s.

The Medical Science Behind Transgenderism and Athletic Competition

Transgender track stars” Terry Miller and Andraya Yearwood can speak out all they want.  What they and their supporters are claiming violate very well-known and long-proven medical FACT.

Here’s what those FACTS have to say:

1. A genetic male begins producing testosterone between weeks 9 and 12, changing the body, including differentiation of sexual organs.  Sex differences in humans have been studied in a variety of fields. In humans, biological sex is determined by five factors present at birth: the presence or absence of a Y chromosome, the type of gonads, the sex hormones, the internal reproductive anatomy (such as the uterus), and the external genitalia.  Genetic sex is determined solely by the presence or absence of a Y chromosome.

2. Even well before puberty, the female skeleton is generally less massive, smoother, and more delicate than the male. Its rib cage is more rounded and smaller, its lumbar curve greater, and a generally longer and smaller female waist results from the chest being more narrow at the base, and the pelvis generally not as high. The pelvis is, in general, different between the human female and male skeleton. It differs both in overall shape and structure. The female pelvis, adapted for gestation and childbirth, is less high, but proportionately wider and more circular than in the male; its sacrum—the triangular bone at the upper posterior of the pelvic cavity, serving as base of the spine—is also wider. The female pelvis is tilted anteriorly, often resulting in the more sway-backed appearance.

Even well before puberty, boys, on average, have significantly greater muscle mass, physiological leverage, overall muscle strength, and run faster than girls.

The changes in body structure are sufficiently pronounced by the fourth grade that both male and female school children between 9 and 12 years old can, with an accuracy exceeding 80%, correctly identify the sex of their same-aged peers by looking at face-only (no hair, makeup, or jewelry) photographs.

Indeed, the scholarly article entitled, “Genetic influences on the development of grip strength in adolescence” clearly reveals “Enhanced physical strength is a secondary sex characteristic in males. Sexual dimorphism in physical strength far exceeds sex differences in stature or total body mass, suggesting a legacy of intense sexual selection.”

Furthermore, a study by “Leyk, D., et al. “Hand-grip strength of young men, women and highly trained female athletes.” European journal of applied physiology 99.4 (2007): 415-421.” reveals that even an average human male has greater grip strength than female Olympic athletes.

3. At puberty, these sexually dimorphic differences accelerate, resulting in young men and young women capable of successful reproduction, not to mention significant physical differences in bony structure that no amount of subsequent anti-androgen administration can erase.  Indeed, forensic anthropologists can determine the sex of a human skeleton by quick examination of many different sexually dimorphic skeletal characteristics.

4. The administration of testosterone-suppression drugs, even if begun before puberty, do NOT reverse the significantly distinct physiological characteristics and both strength and mechanical advantage which has already developed.

In summary, regardless of when they began taking anti-androgen drugs, Terry Miller and Andraya Yearwood have, since birth, been developing the masculine raw muscle strength and mechanical joint leverage advantages which enable them to beat genetic females.

Allowing them or any other MTF transgender people to compete against genetic females is a HEINOUS affront to the spirit of fair competition throughout the world of sports, not to mention firmly established medical science. The various legislative bodies who signed off allowing MTF transgenders to compete with genetic females are obviously totally ignorant, grossly mislead, or attempting to advance an agenda contrary to every known medical and scientific finding on sexual dimorphism.

STOP this madness. NOW.

Let them compete in academia, where there is no known sexually dimorphic advantage.  Environment, yes.  Genetically, no.

Why Democrats Oppose the Will of the People

When it comes to the will of the people, the first 60 seconds says it all:  “The majority of Americans are for tighter border control, are against allowing more LEGAL immigrants, oppose allowing ANY illegal aliens, and support defunding of sanctuary cities.” – Ingraham:  DACA detour jeopardizes GOP’s new midterm momentum

That pretty much says it all, so why are Democrats so pushy counter to the will of We the People, even to the point of resorting to deceit and outright lies? Time after time after time again, liberals are caught spinning the truth, bending the truth, and even breaking the truth, putting forth outright lies, misstatements of fact, and glaring omission of relevant facts.

Their actions, funneled largely through mainstream (liberal) media, violate every tenet of Journalistic Ethics, so why do they keep doing it?
It’s certainly not to “educate the people,” as lying never educated anyone. It’s certainly not the money angle, as Americans largely ditched MSNBC after Bryan William’s outright lie was highlighted after years of his nightly sessions of stretching the truth. Americans have largely ditched CNN for the same reason, flocking to Fox News simply because Fox provides countering points of view, in addition to digging up actual facts from known reliable and credible sources.
The only logical conclusion we have left is that journalists are either incompetent, or they’re simply pawns for the much larger mind control effort perpetrated on the American people by old money in order to do their bidding. If the latter, that would indeed make the liberals and those who vote for them the “useful idiots” spoken of throughout history.

A Simple IQ Test

When I was a child, the teachers couldn’t figure out why I never paid any attention in class.  After a couple of visits to a psychologist, and following the administration of an IQ test on which I scored 130, he confirmed I my mind was simply in 5th gear as the teacher was presenting second grade material.

In the Spring of 1985, a bunch of people were gathered on the lawn of my college apartment complex for a picnic.  I recognized a friend and stepped outside to join her for some conversation.  She said her father, one of my former professors, was holding a Mensa outreach picnic and invited me to join the group.  A couple of weeks later, I took the test, and walla!  I was in Mensa.

I have since taken a number of IQ tests such as the one below, with scores of 120, 133, 139, 140, 167, and 180+.  What’s going on?  Why the variation in scores?  Let’s take a look at an IQ test I took this morning as we examine why.

IQ Test
IQ Test

Even though I answered all questions correctly, the test shows a lower IQ than my actual IQ.  Nevertheless, it’s statistically accurate, in that there were only 20 questions.  Even though I scored a 20/20, provided the IQ test contains questions of equally distributed difficulty, one cannot say for statistical certainty that it’s any higher than 133.  There simply aren’t enough questions.  A score of 40/40 might result in an IQ score of 140; 60/60 might result in an IQ score of 150, and 100/100 questions might result in an IQ score of 160.  The more questions on the test, along with the more people tested using that particular test, then the finer the granularity with which the test can pinpoint your score.  When it comes to scores with the middle 85%, it’s probably reasonable accurate, +/- 10 to 15 points.  When it comes outliers, however, it cannot differentiate between a score of perhaps 125 and a 200, so it picks the statistical median of all scores higher than 125, which is 133.  A test with more questions would be able to pinpoint that to perhaps 128, or 132 or 150+.

The thing about it is the furthermore down or up the scale you fall, the more of an outlier of your score, then the more questions are required to definitely assess your score AND the more people have to take the test against which your performance can be measured.

With that in mind, let’s see where these scores originated:

120:  Given to me by a forensic psychologist at my request, along with a large battery of other tests, in order to determine suitability for visitation and custody during divorce proceedings.  I’d experienced severe chronic insomnia for six months straight prior to the test, and probably got all of about four hours of sleep the night before, so, no, I didn’t do very well!

133:  Score obtained by correctly answering 20 out of 20 questions.  You can take the test yourself by following the links, above.

139:  Test I took in second grade, administered by a child psychologist.  The test didn’t go any higher than 139, so 139 it was.

140:  Test I took in the Air Force, as part of a low-key study conducted by our squadron.  Again, the test didn’t go any higher.

167:  An experimental but reasonably accurate test designed to measure people with a high IQ.

180:  An actual IQ test.  The score doesn’t go any higher.  I think I was lucky, as I was feeling exceptionally well-rested and alert that day!

So, what’s my actual IQ?  Well, it’s certainly higher than 120, that’s for certain.  I believe it’s higher than 139/140, as those were my scores — and the top score — on two standard IQ tests widely used and accepted throughout the arena of psychology.  I’m reasonably sure it’s higher than 150, as I did become a member of Mensa.  I think it may be as high as 180 on my best days, when I’m firing on all 100 billion neurons.

However, given more than half a century of experience interacting with other people, I’m inclined to believe I have an IQ of 167 +/-15 pts.  Again, while it’s relatively easy to pinpoint an IQ ranging in the middle 83% of the pack, between 80 and 120, the further out you go in either direction, the more difficult it is to accurately determine one’s IQ score.

If you want to take either a short or a long free online Stanford-Binet IQ test, click here.  For kicks and grins, just to see what a really low score might feel like, I took the long test of 100 questions, randomly answering at least 3 out of 4 questions, and only thinking about the ones where I liked the way the question looked.  If it looked like I might have to think about it, I skipped it.  My score put me in the 83rd percentile, which corresponds to an IQ of about 116.

Tiny Homes and 3D Printed Homes – Cheaper and Better Than Traditional Construction

Traditional builders continue to reject and exclude both Tiny Homes (usually built by their owners) and 3D Printed Homes from within city tiny homelimits, citing all sorts of made-up CRAP, including FALSELY claiming the technology is “immature” and “won’t hold up over time” or “under severe tiny home - cottageweather conditions.”

I think Traditional Builders are DINOSAURS and it’s high time cities give their equity-robbing souls THE BOOT.

In FACT, 3D printed homes correct many of the problems associated with traditional homes, including avoidance of materials that warp and degrade over times. Unlike traditional homes, their shapes are highly resistant to wind, are far stronger than traditional construction, and far less expensive.

In FACT, Tiny Homes solve many of the problems encountered with mobile tiny home homes, most notably, cost and resale value, as a good Tiny Home costs, on average, about a third the cost of a mobile home, and they’re being resold for two to three times the cost of materials used in their construction.

Smaller? Yes. However, they do NOT waste space, as do traditional homes. They’re far cheaper, stronger, more unique, more comfortable, and generally a HUGE step in the right direction.

What do you think about Tiny Homes and 3D Printed Homes?