Weather or Not

Severe Outflow by R. Edwards

Shut Up about “Chemtrails”: They’re Not Real!

by Leave a Comment

This BLOG often deals with science and weather — hence, its name. As such, the following won’t surprise most people who have read it, and if you agree with the title, feel free to skip this one. It’s for the likely small minority of readers who think “chemtrails” actually are a thing. Unfortunately, the majority (not all!) who spout such talk seem to be fellow conservatives. Sad!

For any “chemtrail” people in my audience, pay close attention. What follows are hardcore facts delivered with a dose of tough love. I care about you and the veracity of our sociopolitical messaging, and as someone well-qualified to do so (see below), want to figuratively slap this one bit of absolutely baseless nonsense right out of your noggin.

Chemtrails are made-up paranoid bullshit. So is any “research” that claims to prove them.

Cloud seeding is completely unrelated, is designed to increase rain volume in totally different types of clouds, and even that is not scientifically proved (nor provable) to work in the real atmosphere. It only can be verified in tightly controlled, boxed-in lab settings that cannot mimic the complexity of the real sky. For more learning on cloud seeding from a real weather scientist (Chuck Doswell, R.I.P., one of the best there ever was), read his explanation.

Fundamental scientific and mathematical reality abounds: 2+2=4, water is wet, and contrails are not “chemtrails.” As explained in this SkyPix link, they are simply hot jet-engine exhaust cooled down fast. First it cools to the dewpoint, condensing the water vapor, then rapidly to freezing and beyond, forming ice crystals. [Condensation straight to ice also is possible.] In an atmosphere just moist enough that the crystals don’t evaporate (“sublimate” in ice terms) almost instantly, they stick around at least briefly where they were laid, forming the contrails, that in turn can be deformed, flattened, moved whole, or fragmented by surrounding wind.

That’s it! You can make contrails too, under the right conditions. On a cold, moist night or twilight, so you can see it better, walk backward or sideways while exhaling. The jet engine of course is far larger and hotter, with a lot more water vapor and exhaling force than your lungs. And it’s very cold up there where planes fly high — tens of degrees below zero, even in summer.

These truths are simply indisputable by rational and sane people. All else is unadulterated bullshit. It’s tiring and discouraging to see this rubbish repeated and spread over years and years, by so many smart but gullible people who should know better, and far too many others who clearly weren’t taught how to think critically, all latching onto the most extreme possibilities dredged from the sewer sludge of conspiratorial fantasy.

Who am I to say these things? As for research, I have published over 100 formal and conference papers in atmosphere science, as a full-time weather forecaster, who also has been a scientific journal editor for 21 years and documented clouds and storms photographically for 40 years. Simply put, I absolutely DO understand cloud formation by type far, far, far better than any chemtrail crackpot claiming to “do my own research.” And I don’t care if some tone-policing nitwit, acting like a refugee from either the Harper Valley PTA or Florida’s worst condo association, thinks that’s “bragging” or “arrogant”. It ain’t, since it’s factually true.

Real science is not about finding some compelling-sounding video by some rage-baiting YouTube yahoo claiming knowledge he doesn’t really have, then nodding your head and saying, “Hell yeah duuuuuuude!”, then calling that research.

I challenge anyone here who has done “my own research” (which is not looking up crackpot websites or YouTube videos, but actual science) to show me your CV with some peer-reviewed published papers. Can’t? Then sit down and learn something from those of us who have. Aside from basic atmospheric physics, a helpful concept to learn would be, how bad ideas spread.

I’m not debating this. I’m typing out the plain factual truth. Can’t handle the truth? Your problem, not mine. Get help.

The final word on contrails vs. “chemtrails” has been written.

Onward!

Fallacy of the Epicurean Paradox

by Leave a Comment

One of the most common quotes and memes of the era of the “New Atheist,” the very online phenomenon of virulently polemic, attention-seeking, anti-God “intellectuals” that took root in the early part of this century and (fortunately) seems to have run its course for the most part, is this one. It still is quoted a lot, however, by lingering and aging followers of the likes of Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and other celebrities of the “Angry Atheist” cadre, as well as a few social-media acquaintances who have had bad experiences in their lives, therefore in their minds, God must not exist.

Epicurean Paradox Meme

The fallacy behind this supposed “paradox” has been apparent to me vaguely yet powerfully (a big but blunt mallet) for a long time, 25 years or more, in the wantonly presumptuous judgmentalism directed at God by statement two of that string (malevolence). However, not until recently, in a comment to another hoisting of the tiresome meme, I finally struck the root problem and then was able to articulate it.

Epicurus’ paradox is trite and superficial. The issue ultimately revolves around the concept of God-given liberty (free will). How?

* God values significantly free creatures: A world containing intelligent beings with genuine moral freedom (the ability to choose good or evil) is more valuable than a world of automata who always do good because they have no real choice. True love, virtue, and relationship with God require the real possibility of refusal. That’s because involuntary love is not love. To allow for voluntary love, He permits malevolence to exist. This doesn’t mean He is malevolent, any more than my permitting my kids to fail and risk pain (in order to learn) would mean I hate them. Put another way: tough love!

* Freedom and evil are logically linked: It is logically impossible for God to create beings who are significantly free to choose, yet guaranteed never to choose evil. If God forces them always to choose good, they are not truly free to make that choice. As Plantinga put it, even an omnipotent God cannot do what is logically contradictory (e.g., create a square circle or free creatures who are not free). This is not a constraint on God if you realize that logic and reason are His creations, bestowed upon us as gifts of capability.

Therefore, moral evil is possible and actual: Much of the evil we see (war, murder, cruelty) results from the free choices of humans (and possibly fallen angels). God allows it not because He is powerless or malevolent, but because eliminating the possibility of evil would require eliminating genuine freedom — a greater good.

This is logically consistent with God’s Biblical attributes; in the Bible, he knowingly allowed numerous good people, even his own Son, to suffer, deeply. Before Jesus, He also directly inflicted suffering and death upon evildoers and those who disobeyed Him, precisely for those reasons. Under these contexts, God quite possibly — reasonably in fact — has a morally sufficient reason for creating a world with free creatures, even though it contains evil. Plantinga constructs a possible world (a coherent scenario) where God and evil coexist without contradiction.

The skeptic must prove it is impossible for God to have such a reason — something no one has successfully done.

Faced with that, the skeptic either admits that hole in his argument, or claims (without evidence) that there is no God. I’m thankful not to be in that person’s shoes, and instead, to understand that God, having an intellect infinitely superior to mine, logically must possess reasoning and reasons I cannot possibly grasp without being on His level, and live with that. That includes reasons for evil and suffering. So it is.

I’ll acknowledge, I’m smart — since I was a little kid, many have said, very much or extremely so. Regardless, I still cannot compare to God, who graced me with a strong gift, yet still, an infinitely tiny fraction of His own capacity for understanding. I’m content to concede that without hesitation, and with waiting until I’m in His infinite and holy company to find out more than I’m capable of understanding, under the current physiological limitations of my quite imperfect, earthly neurological construction. Once one has reached that level of both self-awareness and surrender of pride, it’s actually easier to comprehend His vastness, even if in the smallest of ways. I encourage the same from fellow “intellectuals,” because it’s both a reassuring and rational place to be with one’s own capacities.

Immigration, the Right Way

by Leave a Comment

With regard to immigration, I’m all for it, when done the one and only right way: the legal way. Hey, I married an immigrant — who strongly agrees with me. Her family brought so much greatness to this country, from rescuing over 10,000 flying raptors, to designing the bore that drilled the Eisenhower Tunnel and being on the team that engineered I-70 through Glenwood Canyon, to creating amazing websites used by scientists, churches, small businesses, and me, to helping to raise my children. That is American greatness personified and made real for generations to come…by members of just one family of immigrants. Nobody, I mean nobody, can accuse me of being “anti immigrant.” The very idea is outlandishly ridiculous, and I’ll laugh anyone out of the building for even suggesting such.

We need, and should encourage, merit-based legal immigration, especially of STEM people who can contribute tangibly and with deep legacy to our longstanding scientific, engineering and military preeminence as a nation. I’ve known (and broken bread with) more legal immigrants and legally staying visa holders of all races, creeds, and backgrounds than most folks pontificating behind their own keyboards ever will meet.

My father, a member of the “working poor” economic class that a lot of open-border advocates falsely claim to support, was very nearly killed by an illegal immigrant who was driving drunk, and suffered in great pain for many months afterward. So yes, this is personal, and I have a horse in this race. You bet I do, and I’m not ever backing down from that, for any reason. His legacy does, and must, matter.

Regardless of any statistical twisting of crime numbers, this fact is absolutely and unequivocally indisputable: illegal-alien crimes are not committed if they are not here. Simple as that. Period. Fact. That means less crime occurs in absolute numbers, without illegal immigration. It also means what happened to my dad wouldn’t have, those people killed (yes, I have a list) would be around, numerous raped women wouldn’t have been dealt that unspeakable trauma, and a lot of cars and other personal property still would be with their rightful owners.

Cabbage, eggs, pork rinds, or TVs would cost more? So what. They already have skyrocketed anyway, for unrelated reasons. I am more than willing to put my money where my mouth is and pay more for stuff, if I know for sure that it was farmed, shipped, manufactured, or packaged by citizens, or those in the process of legal citizenship. Again, I even married a legal immigrant and am forever blessed to have done so. Are illegal-immigration advocates willing to put their money where their mouths are and host them in their own homes? Based on the actual results so far among politicians and people I know, clearly not. Hypocrites.

This ideal also does not excuse any abuses committed in the process of border control. Bad apples in any arm of law enforcement (which are a tiny minority) should be dealt with by judges and juries. However, do not throw the baby out with the bath water. If your car’s radiator hose springs a leak, do you chuck the car? No. You fix the leak or replace the hose, and drive on. And regardless of highly publicized, isolated incidents in viral videos posted by a shrill, extremist faction of self-appointed freeze-frame lawyers, civilized societies contain a critical mass of mature people who support both enforcing the law and rooting out bad apples. Yes, both can be done.

In some quarters, you’ll see messages (often citing hastily Googled-up, cherry-picked Bible verses way out of context) to the effect that disallowing or enforcing against illegal immigration is “un-Christian.” That is false teaching and emotional manipulation. Do not fall for it.

In his current job as House Speaker, Mike Johnson has done some things I like and some things I don’t (caving in to both his own party and the other on a few important debt-related, individual-liberty and government-transparency issues, mainly). Yet he’s on the mark here with this piece, written during the Biden administration and reposted yesterday, on why having borders and enforcing them not only does not violate Biblical Christian precepts, it *upholds* them. A remarkably well-done essay, for a politician.

In fact, I was going to post one from an ordained minister and Bible expert I follow; but this is actually better written and more clearly organized. Again…surprising, but sometimes that happens, even to me. 🙂 It does uphold the sanctity of the overarching idea behind border control and enforcement, and properly outlines the role of government from practical and Biblical perspectives.

Do not be misled by fake, shallow and/or non-Christians offering false teaching!

—————–
THE CHRISTIAN CASE FOR BORDER SECURITY
by Mike Johnson

Despite the insistence of the progressive Left, people of all religious faiths should support a strong national border—and Christians CERTAINLY should. Critics are fond of citing particular Bible verses out of context to claim that Christians and Jews are being “unfaithful” if we oppose their radical open borders agenda. It has become increasingly important for us to set this record straight.

Perhaps the verse most often cited by the Left is Leviticus 19:34. Whether they know it or not, that passage happens to be from the instructions Moses delivered to the Israelites when they were on their journey through the wilderness in Sinai, before they reached their own Promised Land. The verse reads as follows: “But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.” (KJV)

CONTEXT IS CRITICAL
It is, of course, a central premise of Judeo-Christian teaching that strangers should be treated with kindness and hospitality. We are each called to love God first and to love our neighbors as ourselves (Deut. 6:5, Lev. 19:18, Matt. 22:36-40, KJV). However, that “Greatest Commandment” was never directed to the government, but to INDIVIDUAL believers.

The Bible teaches that God ordained and created four distinct spheres of authority— (1) the individual, (2) the family, (3) the church, and (4) civil government—and each of these spheres is given different responsibilities. For example, while each INDIVIDUAL is accountable for his or her own behavior (e.g., Exodus 20), the FAMILY is commanded to “bring up children in the training and instruction of the Lord” (Eph. 6:4) and “provide for their relatives” (1 Tim. 5:8). The CHURCH is commanded to make disciples and equip people for the work of the ministry (Eph. 4:11-13), and the CIVIL GOVERNMENT is established to faithfully uphold and enforce the law so that order can be maintained in this fallen world, crime can be kept at bay, and people can live peacefully (Rom. 13, 1 Tim. 2:1-2).

To be properly understood, anytime a command is given in Scripture, one must first determine to WHOM that command is directed. For example, when Jesus taught us as His followers to practice mercy and forgiveness and to “turn the other cheek” (Matt. 5:38-40, KJV), He was not giving that command to the government. To the contrary, when government officials ignore crime, they are directly VIOLATING their responsibilities before God.
Indeed, the civil authorities are specifically charged to do justice, to ”bear the sword,” and to serve as “the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil” (Rom. 13:1-4, KJV). As the Bible warns: “When a crime is not punished quickly, people feel it is safe to do wrong.” (Ecc. 8:11, TLB)

Read in its context, the passage in Leviticus 19 makes perfect sense. Showing love and kindness to a stranger was not a command given to civil government, but instead to individual believers. That same principle is emphasized in the New Testament. When Jesus spoke of embracing, caring, and providing for “the least of these” (E.g., Matt. 25:31-40), His instruction was given to His disciples, and not the local authorities.
The Bible is clear that Christians should practice personal charity—but also insist upon the enforcement of laws (like our federal immigration statutes) so that “every person is subject to the governing authorities” and “those who resist incur judgment” (Rom. 13:1-2).

BORDERS ARE BIBLICAL

Many on the Left today, and even some at the highest levels of our government, consider themselves “globalists” who envision a utopian world order where there are no borders between countries at all. Their fantasy will simply never be realized, and their basic premise (that man is inherently good and perfectible on his own) is the opposite of the Biblical truth that man is fallen and in need of redemption that is available only through salvation in Jesus Christ.

The Bible speaks favorably and consistently about distinct nations of people (see, e.g., Gen. 18:18, Num. 32:17, Psalm 67:2, Matt. 28:19, Rev. 5:9, 7:9, NIV), and about borders and walls that are built to guard and secure people, property, and jurisdictions (see, e.g., Deut. 19:14, 27:17, 32:8, Acts 17:26, NIV). When Nehemiah heroically led the Jewish remnant to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem after their enemies had destroyed those walls, he was doing the noble work of God (Neh. 1-6, NIV).

Maintaining a secure border is not an offensive measure, but a wise, defensive one to prevent chaos and safeguard innocent life. As Rev. Franklin Graham once summarized, “Why do you lock your doors at night? Not because you hate the people on the outside, but because you love the people on the inside so much.”

THE CURRENT CATASTROPHE

Right now, because of 64 deliberate policy choices and executive orders of the Biden Administration, America is facing an unprecedented humanitarian and national security catastrophe at our open southern border. More than 10 million illegal aliens from around the world have entered the U.S. since Joe Biden became President, the majority of whom are single, military-aged men. Among them are countless violent criminals and more than 300 suspects on the terrorist watchlist. Cartels are making billions trafficking young women and unaccompanied minors, and many are suffering unspeakable abuses along the way. The Fentanyl that China and the cartels have pushed into the U.S. has become the leading cause of death for Americans aged 18-45.

As the peril increases and communities across our country become more and more overwhelmed with the crushing financial burdens of managing the influx of illegals, American citizens (and even a few Democratic governors and mayors) are finally demanding a return to sanity. America has always been a haven for people legitimately seeking asylum from danger in their home country, but we must insist they pursue a course of legal immigration and not simply ignore our laws.

Of course, the President of the United States must be the first to uphold our laws. Every citizen should insist that President Biden immediately use the eight broad statutory authorities he has right now to secure our borders and stop incentivizing illegal immigration. Among his most important executive authorities is 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), which empowers a President to “suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate” if he “finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.”

AN AUTHENTIC CHRISTIAN RESPONSE

Due in large part to our Judeo-Christian foundations and the deep religious heritage we enjoy in this country, America is the most benevolent nation in the world—by far. However, we cannot maintain that strength and generosity if we surrender our own safety and sovereignty. Preserving law and order and securing our borders should not be partisan issues, but matters of common sense. These are certainly responsibilities fully authorized by the Bible—and expected of us by God.

Any time liberals attempt to bolster their “open borders” agenda by citing Scripture out of context, they should be kindly corrected with the facts (2 Tim. 2:24-25). Christians are called to love unconditionally, serve selflessly, and defend the defenseless. We are also called to stand for, and work to ensure, just government. Justice and mercy are not mutually exclusive pursuits. To the contrary, God specifically requires His people to practice both (Micah 6:8). Despite the unfounded claims of the Left, supporting a strong national border is a very Christian thing to do. The Bible tells us so.