Tuesday, December 28, 2010

Wishing you all the best the New Year can bring!



“We will open the book.
Its pages are blank.
We are going to put words on them ourselves.
The book is called "Opportunity" and its first chapter is
New Year's Day.”

- Edith Lovejoy Pierce

Thursday, December 16, 2010

Tummy Friendly Holiday Treats!

5 desserts that have nothing to do with chocolate and peppermint

(we know but this is supposed to be belly friendly)

Excerpted from Elaine Magee's

Tell Me What to Eat if I Have Acid Reflux, Revised Edition.


Creamy Cherry Pie

This pie was a breeze to make. No pastry pie crust to blend and roll (you make a graham cracker crust). And the filling just calls for four ingredients, three of which are extremely convenient (sweetened condensed milk, a carton of sour cream, and a can of cherry pie filling). About the only thing you have to do is squeeze a couple of lemons. But if you buy bottled lemon juice, you don’t even have to do that!

Makes 12 servings.

Crust:

1 Tbs. butter or canola margarine, melted.

2 Tbs. fat-free or light sour cream.

1 Tbs. lemon or orange liqueur (Grand Marnier or Caravella).

1 1/4-cup graham cracker crumbs.

Filling:

14 oz. can fat-free sweetened condensed milk.

1/4 cup lemon juice.

1 cup of fat-free or light sour cream.

21 oz. can of cherry pie filling.

1. Preheat oven to 400 degrees. Coat the bottom and sides of a 9-inch deep-dish pie plate with canola cooking spray.

2. Combine butter, 2 Tbs. fat-free sour cream and lemon or orange liqueur in a food processor and pulse briefly just until blended. (If you don’t have a food processor, blend the sour cream, liqueur, and butter together in a cup until smooth then drizzle it over the graham cracker crumbs in a medium bowl and stir well until completely blended.) Press mixture in bottom and partway up the sides of a 9-inch pie plate and set aside.

3. Add sweetened condensed milk, lemon juice, and 1 cup of fat-free sour cream to mixing bowl and beat on low until smooth and creamy. Spread mixture over prepared crust.

4. Spoon cherry pie filling over cream mixture using small dinner spoons. Bake for 18 minutes or until filling appears to be nicely set. Let cool for about 30, minutes then refrigerate to cool completely. When ready, cut into 12 wedges.

Per serving: 239 calories, 5 g protein, 49 g carbohydrate, 2.3 g fat, 1 g saturated fat, 3 mg cholesterol, .7 g fiber, 140 mg sodium. Calories from fat: 9 percent.



Snickerdoodles

I know chocolate chip cookies are the most popular cookie, but if you are avoiding chocolate—snickerdoodles have got to be a close second. They stay moist for days but I highly recommend you try them fresh from the oven.

Makes 3 dozen.

1/2 cup butter.

1/4 cup light corn syrup.

1/4 cup light cream cheese (in block).

1 1/4 cup white sugar (3/4 cup sugar and 1/2 cup Splenda can be used)

1 egg.

2 egg whites.

2 tsp. double strength vanilla extract (regular can be used).

1 1/2 cup unbleached white flour.

* 1 1/4 cup whole wheat flour

2 tsp. cream of tartar.

1 tsp. baking soda.

1/4 tsp. salt.

3 tbs. white sugar.

3 tsp. ground cinnamon.

1. Preheat oven to 400 degrees. Coat a thick cookie sheet with canola cooking spray.

2. Cream together butter, corn syrup, cream cheese, and 1 1/4 cups sugar in mixer on medium speed. Add the egg, egg whites, and the vanilla and beat until blended.

3. Add the flour, cream of tartar, soda, and salt to mixing bowl. Beat on low speed to form a dough. Refrigerate for 2 hours or until firm enough to handle.

4. Add 3 tablespoons of sugar and cinnamon to small, shallow bowl and blend well.

5. Use a cookie scoop (1/8 level cup or heaping tbs.) to form cookie balls and roll each generously in the cinnamon sugar mixture. Place on cookie sheet, 2 inches apart. Bake about eight minutes or until set, but not too hard. Remove immediately from cookie sheet.

Per cookie: 99 calories, 1.5 g protein, 17 g carbohydrate, 2.9 g fat, 1.7 g saturated fat, 13 mg cholesterol, .3 g fiber, 90 mg sodium. Calories from fat: 26 percent.


Key Lime Bars

I’m a lemon bar and key lime pie lover from way back. So, it took me mere minutes to work up a lighter version of this key lime bar recipe. I love the idea of marrying the classic lemon bar recipe with a key lime pie. I was worried that I would be disappointed after this big buildup of taste expectation, but not to worry; these key lime bars are yummy. The shortbread cookie crust was tender and tasty and the lime topping was just the right amount of tart and tang.

Makes 12 large or 24 small bars.

3 Tbs. butter or canola margarine, softened.

3 Tbs. light or fat-free cream cheese.

1/2 cup granulated sugar.

1 egg yolk.

3/4 cup unbleached flour.

2 Tbs. powdered sugar.

1 egg.

1/4 cup egg substitute.

1 cup granulated sugar.

2 Tbs. unbleached flour.

1/3 cup key lime juice (regular lime juice may be substituted).

2 Tbs. powdered sugar (for sprinkling or sifting on top before serving).

1. Preheat oven to 350 degrees. Coat 8x8-inch baking dish with cooking spray.

2. In electric mixer, beat the butter, cream cheese, and 1/2 cup of sugar until light and fluffy. Beat in the egg yolk and gradually add the 3/4-cup flour. Spread into the prepared 8-x 8-inch pan. Sprinkle powdered sugar on top of the dough so the dough doesn’t stick to the palm of your hands as you pat it down to make a crust in pan. Bake 15 minutes.

3. Meanwhile, in a mixing bowl (you can use the same one you used to make the crust), beat the egg and egg substitute slightly. Add in 1 cup of sugar and 2 tbs. flour and beat on low speed until blended. Add the lime juice and beat on low until blended. Pour onto warm shortbread crust and bake for 15 minutes more.

4. Place on rack to cool. Before slicing and serving, sprinkle the top with 2 tbs. or more of sifted powdered sugar.

Per large bar (if 12 bars per recipe): 180 calories, 2.6 g protein, 33 g carbohydrate, 4.5 g fat, 2.5 g saturated fat, 45 mg cholesterol, .3 g fiber, 55 mg sodium. Calories from fat: 22 percent.


Raspberry Coconut Bars

Raspberry bars—not to be confused with the more famous lemon bars. These bars have coconut and chopped pecans and are topped with a thin baked meringue type topping. I couldn’t even tell the light rendition of these bars were light. I love this recipe!

Makes 24 bars.

6 Tbs. butter, softened.

6 Tbs. light cream cheese.

1 1/2 cups sugar (1 cup sugar and 1/2 cup Splenda can be used)

2 eggs, separated.

3/4 cup white flour.

* 3/4 cup whole wheat flour

3/4 cup raspberry preserves (low-sugar preserves will bring down the calories from sugar even farther).

1/2 cup shredded coconut.

3/4 cup chopped pecans.

1. Preheat oven to 350 degrees. Coat a 13-x 9-x 2-inch baking pan with canola cooking spray.

2. In electric mixer, beat the butter, cream cheese, and 1 cup of sugar until light and fluffy. Beat in egg yolks and gradually add the flour. Spread into prepared pan and bake for about 15 minutes. Cool slightly and spread with raspberry preserves; sprinkle with coconut.

3. Beat egg whites until stiff. Gradually beat in the remaining 1/2-cup sugar until soft peaks form. Gently fold in the pecans. Spread mixture over the raspberry preserve layer and bake again at 350 degrees for eight to 10 minutes or until top is lightly golden brown. Cool and cut into 24 bars.

Per serving: 170 calories, 2 g protein, 26.5 g carbohydrate, 6.5 g fat, 3 g saturated fat, 26 mg cholesterol, 2 g fiber, 56 mg sodium. Calories from fat: 35 percent.


Apple Crisp

You can make lots of variations with this recipe. For example, instead of apples, you can use 6 cups peach slices and 2 cups raspberries for a colorful, tasty crisp.

Makes 9 servings.

6–8 cups sliced apples, peeled or unpeeled depending on your preference.

6 tablespoons whole wheat flour.

* 6 tablespoons white flour

3/4 cup old-fashioned oats.

3/4 cup packed dark brown sugar.

1/2 tsp. salt.

3/4 tsp. ground cinnamon.

1/4 tsp. allspice.

4 tbs. butter or canola margarine, melted.

1 tsp. vanilla.

2 tbs. buttermilk (regular milk can also be used).

1. Preheat oven to 375 degrees. Coat 9-x 9-inch baking dish with canola cooking spray. Place apple slices into prepared dish.

2. In medium bowl, blend dry ingredients. In 1 cup measure, blend butter, vanilla, and buttermilk together with fork. Drizzle butter mixture over the top of the dry ingredients and blend mixture with fork until the mixture is crumbly.

3. Sprinkle crumb mixture evenly over the fruit. Bake for 30–35 minutes or until apples are tender and top is lightly browned. Serve warm with light vanilla ice cream if desired.

Per serving: 206 calories, 2.5 g protein, 37.5 g carbohydrate, 6 g fat, 3.3 g saturated fat, 14 mg cholesterol, 4 g fiber, 14 mg cholesterol, 179 mg sodium. Calories from fat: 25 percent.




Elaine Magee, MPH, RD, is fondly known through her national column and on WebMD.com as "The Recipe Doctor." She is the author of 25 books on nutrition and healthy cooking, including the revolutionary Food Synergy, as well as other best-selling titles in the Tell Me What to Eat series, covering type-2 diabetes, acid reflux, irritable bowel syndrome, and other important health issues. She frequently appears on television and radio shows across the country and resides in Northern California with her husband and two teenage daughters



Wednesday, December 15, 2010

Weird News of the Week


Freaky Photo Found on Deer Stand Camera - What is This?





Pandas walking on two legs, talking to each other in Chinese,
removing their heads... wait, what?!



And a bit of good news in the Spirit of the Holidays


Displaced Katrina Cat found it's way Home

Monday, December 13, 2010

Have an ailment that a change in eating habits might help? Time to check out our Tell Me What to Series

As the holiday nears all of us give ourselves the freedom to splurge a little more than usual on our favorite foods and sweets. Changes in eating habits whether due to travel, splurges, or being a little more festive can definitely have an effect on our bellies.

Our Tell Me What to Eat series is very beneficial to readers as the books discuss specific conditions and give you the latest overview of the malady. They then give you an overview of which specific foods to stay away from and which new foods you might try to better your condition.

A few specific books that might come in handy are:

Tell Me What to Eat if I Have Acid Reflux, Revised Edition

By Elaine Magee, MPH, RD


Tell Me What to Eat If I Have Acid Reflux begins with an overview of acid reflux. Readers get a detailed yet completely understandable explanation of how and why this condition begins—an explanation that is based on the latest medical information. The majority of the book is dedicated to all the ways that diet and lifestyle can bring relief and decrease heartburn, including an entire section with specific tips and recipes to help you during the worst times of the year for heartburn sufferers—the holiday season.

Tell Me What to Eat If I Have Acid Reflux offers dozens of healthful, practical, tasty recipe options for foods you never thought you could enjoy again, plus heartburn-savvy tips on navigating the supermarket, cooking in your kitchen, and eating out.


Tell Me What to Eat if I Have Irritable Bowel Syndrome, Revised Edition

By Elaine Magee, MPD, RD



If you have IBS, you are undoubtedly familiar with the link between your condition, your comfort, and what you eat or drink. Elaine Magee gives you positive advice about what foods you should eat almost every day, and whether you suffer from IBS constipation, IBS diarrhea predominant, or the type of IBS that includes both conditions. Easy-to-use tables list what foods are good for diarrhea, and for constipation, and which foods cause bloating or gastrointestinal distress.

This new edition of Tell Me What to Eat if I Have Irritable Bowel Syndrome contains an updated review of all the possible causes of IBS, including hormones and certain medications. It also includes nuggets of wisdom from Dr. Christine Frissora, MD, associate professor of gastroenterology at New York Presbyterian Hospital.

Also included are practical tips such as “The 5 Quickest Ways to 25 Grams of Fiber;” dozens of healthful, mouth-watering recipes; and practical supermarket and “eating out” advice from someone who has suffered from IBS for more than 20 years—the author.


Tell Me What to Eat if I Have Celiac Disease

By Kimberly Tessmer, RD, LD


This comprehensive resource describes every aspect of celiac disease, including diagnosis and daily survival skills. There is an entire chapter which contains invaluable advice from those with the most experience—people with celiac disease!”

—Trisha B. Lyons, RD, LD, MetroHealth Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio

Celiac disease affects at least 3 million Americans. Left untreated, it can lead to the development of a number of serious health conditions and numerous unpleasant side effects. Currently, following a life-long gluten-free diet is the only means to treat this medical condition.

Tell Me What to Eat if I Have Celiac Disease is an informative and non-technical book written to guide anyone with celiac disease to a better understanding of a gluten-free diet. It begins with a simple overview of the disease and the diet, and follows with practical advice, tasty recipes, and valuable resources.

Elaine Magee, MPH, RD, Elaine Magee, MPH, RD, is fondly known through her national column and on WebMD.com as "The Recipe Doctor." She is the author of 25 books on nutrition and healthy cooking, including the revolutionary Food Synergy, as well as other best-selling titles in the Tell Me What to Eat series, covering type-2 diabetes, acid reflux, irritable bowel syndrome, and other important health issues. She frequently appears on television and radio shows across the country and resides in Northern California with her husband and two teenage daughters



Kimberly A. Tessmer, RD, LD, is a consulting dietitian in Brunswick, Ohio. She is the author of The Everything Nutrition Book and The Everything Pregnancy Nutrition Book as well as a contributing author of Conquering Childhood Obesity for Dummies. This month her new book The Complete Idiot’s Guide to the Mediterranean Diet was released. In addition to maintaining her own Website, Kim serves as the RD on the board of directors for Lifestyles Technologies. Kim’s consulting company, Nutrition Focus, specializes in numerous services from weight management to menu planning to writing.

To see the whole list of books in this series please feel free to view them at NewPageBooks.com.

Thursday, December 9, 2010

Science was Wrong by Stanton Friedman & Kathleen Marden - An Excerpt

Since we kicked off the week with an interview by these two authors I thought I'd end the week by giving you a glance at one of the subjects covered in their book. I hope it contains food for thought.

Global Warming: Man or Nature?



Rarely has a subject received so much attention as has the notion of “global warming,” especially since the publication of Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth, the Nobel Peace Prize award received by him and the IPCC (UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) in 2007, and the media hype. If one were to believe the propaganda, CO2 (carbon dioxide) is public enemy number-one. Its increasing production by the world is leading to disastrous consequences, and hundreds of billions of dollars must be spent as soon as possible to reduce the warming and all the damage that will be accompanying it. Use of fossil fuels must be reduced or eliminated. Countries must sign agreements to reduce their emission of carbon dioxide no matter what it costs. Higher performance cars must be devised. Full subsidies must be given for solar and wind power. If these measures aren’t taken, then, the words of Chicken Little, “The sky is falling.”

While there is nothing simple about predicting the weather or evaluation of the myriad of statistics available about it, here are some of the assumptions on which the calls to action are based:

1. All scientists have reached a consensus that Gore and the IPCC are correct.

2. The world is rapidly heating up.

3. The major cause of the supposedly increasing temperature is mankind’s increasing production of evil CO2. Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), which is caused by people, is to blame and Mother Nature is innocent.

4. Action must be taken immediately or we are doomed.

5. Primary threats include rising of the world’s ocean levels by as much as 20 feet as a result of the melting of various glaciers, especially on Greenland and in the Antarctic, leading to a huge loss of lives and habitats for residents of low-lying coastal areas, such as Bangladesh and Manhattan.

6. An increased number of very destructive hurricanes, cyclones, tornados—all as a result of global warming—will occur

7. Polar bears are decreasing in number because of the melting ice, and they need to swim greater distances to find food.

8. Islands, such as the Maldives Southwest of India, are slowly sinking as the ocean rises.

As it happens, in the real world, all of these assumptions are seriously being called into question by a growing number of so-called “deniers.” Though still difficult, it has become easier to publish papers that seek to replace widely held myths with facts in refereed scientific journals. A turning point may have occurred when BBC News published an article by Paul Hudson in October 2009, entitled “What Happened to Global Warming?” The BBC had previously been fully behind the “Kill CO2” movement. Hudson noted that for the last eleven years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures and that the global climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise. Note that, simply put, the temperature of the world has not risen for eleven years.

Hudson noted that according to research conducted in November 2008, by Professor Don Easterbrook from Western Washington University, the oceans and global temperatures are correlated. He says that they warm and cool cyclically. The most important cycle, is the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). This was in a positive cycle (warmer than usual) for much of the 1980s and 1990s, and global temperatures were warmer too. In the past, the cycles have lasted for about thirty years, with the period from 1945 to 1977 coinciding with one of the cool Pacific cycles. Now it is again in a cooling mode. In September 2009, Mojib Latif, a member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, wrote that we may indeed be in a period of cooling that could last another ten to twenty years. The current level of CO2 is about 380ppm. Some believe that we must do all we can to bring it back to 350. We know despite the fact that it has been higher in the past, we have survived.

Everybody knows that the weather changes from day to day and season to season, and that even local forecasts a day in advance can be wrong. The notion that the “sophisticated” computer models used to predict climate change over the next twenty to fifty years for our entire planet are accurate is mind boggling. They all have fudge factors. There are a number of reasons. Weather depends on many factors, including what happens in uninhabited land areas and over the oceans, which cover about three quarters of the planet. There are external factors, such as sunspots, cosmic rays, variations in the energy output of the sun, El Nino, Ocean Decadal motions, volcanic eruptions, pollution of the atmosphere, about which we are slowly beginning to learn. It seems strange, but we sometimes forget that CO2 is not the most abundant greenhouse gas. Water vapor has a much higher concentration. Evaporation of water vapor is also dependent on many factors, which include cloud cover, changes in the surface characteristics of water and ice, winds, and temperature. There are the chlorofluorocarbons which were used in spray cans, methane from farm animals, exhausts from jet aircraft, radio waves bouncing off the ionosphere, ozone, and so on. In addition, we haven’t had many, many years’ worth of good data as to what the actual surface temperatures have been across the planet. Satellite measurements can be very useful, but obviously haven’t been available for many decades.

There is considerable concern with the effects of local factors on the surface measuring devices, especially near cities which tend to hold in heat, and even near structures out in the country. Some devices have even been moved to different locations, though not noted in their compilations. Many devices previously located in the country have been moved to airports.

There are, of course, some indirect means of trying to get a handle on past temperatures, such as the use of tree rings. Cores are taken and the thicknesses of the tree rings each year have a close, but certainly not perfect relation to the overall temperatures that year at the location of the tree. However, not surprisingly, tree rings and tree growth are influenced by other factors besides temperature. Rainfall, shade, root nutrition are among these. One almost bizarre example of the difficulty of using dendrochronology is when a dozen trees at one location were used (even though many more had been examined). Though all were growing in the same area, the results were nowhere near identical. There was also some indication that the data was cherry picked, so that only those trees giving certain results were used. This is not surprising for propaganda and politics, but is surely not the way of science.

There should be no surprise that politics has been such an important part of the global-warming warnings. Al Gore, after all, is not a scientist, but a politician. Likewise, the IPCCC is a much politicized body. The members are supported by their home governments. The actions that are being discussed all involve politics: How much should we reduce our CO2 production, as though passing a law would accomplish the reduction? How many hundreds of billions of dollars should be spent on ameliorating CO2 production? How much should the developed countries give to the undeveloped ones to assist in their attack on C02?

Most CO2 is produced by the burning of fossil fuels in power plants. No government will tell its people to keep their houses much colder in the winter and turn off air conditioning in the summer, that industry should reduce its output, or that cities should be darkened. Closing all coal-fired power plants would be disastrous in many places, though some extremists have demanded such an action. One gets votes, after all, by making promises that one hopes will be forgotten once it’s seen that they cannot be kept. Politics has also been very important in determining the awarding of research contracts. The worse the situation is made to seem, the more research must be done. Thus, most publications discussed in the media provide a range of values for how much the temperature or sea level will increase. The focus is always on the high and usually unrealistic end. For example, some have claimed the sea will rise twenty feet; current rates are about a millimeter a year.

Not surprisingly, one doesn’t hear much about the benefits of higher CO2 levels, such as increased plant growth and crop yields. Controlled experiments have demonstrated that increased CO2 levels lead to increased crop yields. Many countries, such as Russia, would prefer to have a warmer climate. There has been great politicizing in what papers get submitted for publication, because contrarians risk losing their jobs or being denied future research grants if they speak out. A polar bear expert, Mitchell Taylor, who had attended a special conference of polar bear experts every years since 1981, had his paper rejected in 2009, because it didn’t follow the party line as to how much danger the bears were in from global warming. He wasn’t even permitted to attend and was replaced by people knowing nothing about polar bears.

Politically, it isn’t accepted to talk about the fact that water vapor is the most prominent green house gas, much more so than CO2. However, it is very much more difficult to predict accurately the effect of water vapor on planetary temperatures. Far more of the planet is covered with water and ice than with power plants. When water evaporates into the atmosphere, clouds form, and they are blown by unpredictable winds. Clouds keep some solar radiation from reaching the planet by reflecting it back out to space, thus cooling the planet. However, the clouds also absorb some of the heat emitted by the ground and help heat the atmosphere.

It is certainly clear that there have been warmer periods of time than the present, which could not have been caused by CO2, because so little industrialization existed then. There have also been lengthy cooler periods, which also obviously had nothing to do with CO2. The famous “hockey stick” graph shows what seems to be level temperatures for a long time and then a steady increase because of CO2. More careful and honest work shows that the curve just happens to omit periods of higher and lower temperature that could not have been influenced by the production of CO2 and has discretely been left out of recent IPCC publications.

The history of environmental movements certainly includes examples of bandwagon jumping to take care of a perceived problem, often with severe and unplanned consequences. One of the better examples is the banning of the pesticide DDT in 1972. This was directly the result of the hue and cry stemming from Rachel Carson’s 1962 book, Silent Spring. Apparently, egg shells of predatory birds, such as hawks, were thinner because of DDT. The problem is that DDT was by far the most effective, inexpensive, and safe weapon against the anopheles mosquito that spreads malaria. Because of the banning, there have been literally millions of deaths, especially amongst young children in Africa. One might wonder if this is a fair trade off.

A much more recent example involves the production of biofuel to reduce the use of imported oil. Producing corn to be converted to biofuel greatly increased the income of farmers, but, unfortunately though predictably, substantially raised the cost and reduced the supply of food for people. In addition, more detailed calculations have indicated that sometimes more production of CO2 was produced by all the activities associated with the farming and the extraction of the biofuel than would have been produced using the equivalent amount of oil.

In addition, the pressure for non–CO2 producing (renewable) power plants, such as solar and wind power, has been dependent on major government financing, incentives, and subsidies. Because of these it has been profitable to build large solar and wind facilities, but operating them requires much higher expenditures than using non renewable resources. It was found in California, which does have abundant sunlight, that people bought solar swimming pool heaters when substantial tax and subsidy benefits were provided. They stopped when the benefits were eliminated, causing many companies to go out of business. Much repair and servicing of the solar heating systems could not be provided.

There are other strange aspects of the anti-CO2 war. A number of anti-nuclear groups have loudly proclaimed the need to avoid building new nuclear plants and hopefully to shut down old ones. They are also against CO2. But the nuclear power plants produce far, far less, CO2 than do any other major sources of power production. Some countries in Europe, such as Germany and Belgium, have recently delayed earlier mandates to close their existing nuclear power plants by ten or more years because there aren’t reasonably affordable alternatives. Somebody has to pay the bill, though not the activists.

It should not be surprising, considering the examples given in other chapters, that there have been unexpected but significant new scientific developments concerning the factors that control global warming. It was announced on October 18, 2009, that the New Phytologist Journal (184:545-551, November, 2009) had published an article, “A Relationship between Galactic Cosmic Radiation and Tree Rings” by Sigrid Dengel, Dominik Aeby, and John Grace, concerning an evaluation of tree-ring growth rates as a function of various parameters, such as temperature and precipitation. It turns out that there was no significant correlation with temperature or precipitation. However, there was a significant correlation with galactic cosmic radiation. All the trees that were used, Sitka spruce, had been planted in 1953 and cut in 2006. Felling protocols had been laid out by Forest Research; North and West directions were marked on the bark and the discs were frozen as soon as returned to the research station. The rings were counted in their frozen state; otherwise discs can shrink and crack. To quote the authors so as not to bias the reporting: “There was a consistent and statistically significant relationship between growth of the trees and the flux density of galactic cosmic radiation. Moreover there was an underlying periodicity in growth with four minima since 1961, resembling the period cycle of galactic cosmic radiation.” They postulate that what might explain this correlation could be the tendency of galactic cosmic radiation to produce cloud condensation nuclei, which in turn increases the diffuse component of solar radiation, and thus increases the photosynthesis of the forest canopy. Diffuse radiation penetrates the canopy more than direct sunlight.

They found no correlation between temperature or precipitation and growth rates. It would seem that CO2 had nothing to do with the growth rates since it had slowly and steadily increased during the period of growth. One can safely predict that the “warmists” will attack or ignore these results. It is also likely that the “deniers,” who have been getting more and more publicity, will cite these results.

It is interesting that the apparent hoax involving the flight in Colorado of a helium filled balloon, supposedly with a 6-year-old boy on board, receive world-wide attention in October 2009. In contrast, the hoax aspects of global warming have received very little attention. Senator Orinn G. Hatch of Utah did, however, compile a large number of anti-AGW statements by scientists, most of them actually involved with the IPCC. It was reprinted by The Science and Public Policy Institute in their SPPI Reprint Series dated September 18, 2009. The title is “UN Climate Scientists Speak out on Global Warming,” selected and edited by Hatch from the Senate Minority Report. It includes comments from 101 individual scientists sorted by backgrounds as follows:

· UN IPCC Authors: 9

· UN IPCC Scientists: 7

· UN IPCC Expert Reviewers: 12

· NASA: 10

· Other Government Scientists: 6

·State Climatologists: 9

· Academies of Science: l0

· Avowed Environmentalists: 4

· Noted Scientists: 27

· Other Nobel Prize Winners: 3

Hatch, in his introduction, states that the statements prove there is not a consensus, even at the UN, on the widely touted IPCC conclusion: “Greenhouse gas forcing has likely caused most of the observed global warming over the last fifty years.” Hatch notes that the chapter of the IPCC report making that conclusion was reviewed by only 62 scientists, not the 2500 scientist reviewers of the IPCC reports.

The authors, Stanton T. Friedman and Kathleen Marden are among the “who’s who” of their field.



Kathleen Marden is a social scientist, author and educator who has served as the International Director of field investigator training for the Mutual UFO Network. She has appeared in many TV documentaries and in radio programs, and has lectured throughout the United States





Stanton T. Friedman has appeared on hundreds of Radio and TV programs, including the History Channel, Nightline, Larry King Live, numerous times on Coast to Coast AM, and in many documentary films. He is also the author of Flying Saucers and Science, Top Secret/Majic, and Crash at Corona.



Wednesday, December 8, 2010

Positive News of the Week


Good deeds are alive this Holiday season




Love is in the air - 106-year-old man quits smoking — for love



More good news for men whose index finger
is longer then their ring finger

Monday, December 6, 2010

Science was Wrong - an Interview with the Authors


Science Was Wrong is a new title that we released earlier this year before the blog was created. We thought we’d share with you some information about the book through an interview with the two authors involved in the project – Kathleen Marden and Stanton T. Friedman

Science Was Wrong is a fascinating collection of stories about the pioneers who created or thought up the “impossible” cures, theories, and inventions “they” said couldn’t work. How many have suffered or died because cures weren’t accepted? How many inventions have been quashed? How much progress was delayed or denied? You will end up shaking your head in disbelief and even disgust as you learn the answers.

NEW PAGE: Your book is titled Science Was Wrong. Yet it is obvious that both of you hold the scientific community in very high esteem. Was science wrong or was it related more to personal bias on the part of some scientists?

KATHLEEN MARDEN: Science Was Wrong informs readers that throughout history it has been difficult, if not impossible, to promote the acceptance of new discoveries. Today it is apparent that similar forces are engaging in ad hominem attacks against some leading edge scientists, disseminating fabrications and misrepresenting factual information. Each chapter in our book explores the causative factors behind the scientific bias and tunnel vision that have impeded scientific progress. We present example after example of the failure of science to make progress, not because the science was flawed, but as a result of human bias.

NEW PAGE: Why do you think it is so difficult to advance new sound scientific ideas and discoveries?

KATHLEEN MARDEN: I think that there are several reasons. First, scientific methodology is naturally conservative and in a sense this is good. But it is extremely difficult for some scientists to accept new ideas. Imagine that you are a an academic scientist who has spent your entire career as the proponent of a particular theory only to have a young upstart come along with conclusive evidence that effectively refuted and therefore nullified everything you had accomplished.

We must also take into account Occams Razor, the theoretical construct that demands that scientists accept the simplest possible theoretical explanation for existing data. Science tends to prefer the simplest explanation that is consistent with the data available at a given time, but history shows that these simplest explanations often give way to more complex explanations as new data become available. Most of the time, Occam’s razor is a conservative tool that assures hypotheses are grounded in the science of the day. However, it has not been useful to science in its failure to accept some scientific evidence such as meteorites, continental drift, and the idea that genetic information is carried in DNA, not proteins. This also applies to telepathy and UFOs.

Next, I want to mention the difficulty scientists experience in having their sound scientific ideas and discoveries published in prestigious peer reviewed journals. As noted in Science Was Wrong, Luc Montagnier, a researcher from the Louis Pasteur Institute, had already submitted a professional research article about his work on the HIV virus to Nature but he was not successful in getting it published. These findings were only published after Robert Gallo from the National Cancer Institute agreed to submit the Pasteur team’s research findings to Science magazine, along with his own. As you will see in Science Was Wrong, human motivations such as mountainous egos, greed, power grabbing, politics, religious beliefs, and declarations of impossibility have often suppressed sound scientific ideas.

NEW PAGE: You devote a chapter to Methyl‐Mercury in the Food Chain. What is methyl‐mercury and how does it differ from mercury? What causes methyl‐mercury contamination and why is it dangerous?

KATHLEEN MARDEN: Methylmercury is an organic form of mercury that arises when inorganic mercury is absorbed by small plants and animals in lakes and streams. At each step up the food chain, it accumulates in greater concentrations. So that predatory fish at the top of the food chain can have dangerously high levels of the neurotoxin, 10,000 to 100,000 times greater than the water.

Virtually every state in the United States is at risk for methyl-mercury toxicity. Chronic mercury exposure can have a serious impact upon fertility and the outcome of pregnancy. It interferes with the part of the brain that controls reproduction and results in menstrual cycle disorders. In men organic mercury can cause low sperm count, minor genetic damage, a reduction in libido and impotence. It has also been linked to an increased level of cardiac arrhythmia and heart disease, autoimmune disorders, kidney disease and liver disease in both men and women. In children it has been linked to neurological disorders such as learning disabilities, and at worst, symptoms similar to Cerebral Palsy.

NEW PAGE: Astronomers seem to be a favorite target in Science Was Wrong. Can you give some examples of their being wrong?

STANTON T. FRIEDMAN: Dr. Simon Newcombe, the outstanding 19th century American astronomer, in 1903 wrote “The demonstration that no possible combination of known substances, known forms of machinery and known forms of force can be united in a practical machine by which man shall fly long distances through the air seems to this writer as complete as it is possible for the demonstration of any physical fact to be”.

The Wright Brothers quietly made their first flights 2 months later.

Dr. Alexander Bickerton, a New Zealand Astronomer, at the 1926 meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science “proved” there was no way to provide sufficient energy to put anything in orbit around the earth.

There are many satellites.

In a 1941 paper Dr. John Campbell, a Canadian Astronomer, showed that the initial launch weight of a rocket able to send a man to the moon and back would be a million million tons.

The Saturn 5 rocket, weighing 3000 tons, sent 3 men to the moon and back.

The British Astronomer Royal, Sir Richard Wooley, in 1956 said that “Space travel is utter bilge. I don’t think anybody will ever put up enough money to do such a thing”.

Sputnik rose in 1957.

Dr. Carl Sagan claimed there are aliens out there, but not visiting and falsely claimed there are no reliable and interesting UFO sightings.

The data shows the higher the reliability the more likely to be unidentifiable.

NEW PAGE: Stephen Hawking is one of the best known scientists on the planet. Were his comments in April another example of astronomers being wrong?

STANTON T. FRIEDMAN: Very definitely. He was totally unfamiliar with the large scientific studies indicating aliens have been visiting. Furthermore, we are far more advanced compared to the visiting aliens than natives were compared to Columbus. The visitors are much more advanced than we are despite our having weapons of mass destruction, sophisticated reconnaissance systems, space travel and knowledge of nuclear fusion, the energy source of the stars and H bombs. Our first H bomb released the energy of 10 million tons of TNT. We killed 50 million in WW 2. That aliens would send a signal (using Earthling technology) before coming is absurd.

NEW PAGE: Why are you better equipped to deal with topics such as space travel than the professors who claim there is nothing to UFOs or to space travel?

STANTON T. FRIEDMAN: Unlike those quoted above, I have spent decades studying the evidence related to UFOs and deep space travel. I worked as a nuclear physicist on fission and fusion rockets and nuclear power plants for space. I have written or co-authored 5 books about UFOs and have answered thousands of questions after more than 700 lectures and worked under security for 14 years.

The authors, Stanton T. Friedman and Kathleen Marden are among the “who’s who” of their field.


Kathleen Marden is a social scientist, author and educator who has served as the International Director of field investigator training for the Mutual UFO Network. She has appeared in many TV documentaries and in radio programs, and has lectured throughout the United States.





Stanton T. Friedman has appeared on hundreds of Radio and TV programs, including the History Channel, Nightline, Larry King Live, numerous times on Coast to Coast AM, and in many documentary films. He is also the author of Flying Saucers and Science, Top Secret/Majic, and Crash at Corona.




The duo previously collaborated on their best-seller Captured!: The Betty and Barney Hill UFO Experience.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...