Inside science news

Charles Fort

In Fortean Times (FT302) June 2013 ... Bob Rickard reports on the TED affair, the furore that developed around Rupert Sheldrake and Graham Hancock, saying that such activity by scientists, in the past, had sharpened the barbs of Charles Fort's wit. His particular target of ridicule had been those scientists and pundits that sought autocratically to suppress evidence, data, or discussion, for the sole reason they personally disagreed with what was being said.

The Fanaticism of the Apocalypse

Another new book. French intellectual and philosopher Pascal Bruckner, The Fanaticism of the Apocalypse - see the review at

Rupert Sheldrake

The peculiar decision by TED to take down the video talk given by Rupert Sheldrake, apparently due to a faction ganging up on them and blasting them with disapproving emails, has perhaps backfired going by the number of critics of the policy. What TED have done is to shift the videos elsewhere and have provided space on their blog for Sheldrake, and Hancock, to respond - go to ...

Sea water as drinking water

Roger the Tall One, at ... Geim and Novoselov of the University of Manchester were awarded the 2010 Nobel Prize for Physics for their work on the development of graphene. Now, in 2013, Lockheed think they have found a way to remove salt from sea water which has the potential to provide cheap drinking water for all the people of the world. This of course is one of those Green scare stories - humans running out of water. Too many people in the world, they claim.

Censored ... Rupert Sheldrake falls foul of the righteous faithful

You definitely get some whacky talks at TED ... there was some guy the other day that reckoned temperatures on the earth by AD2300 would reach 185 degrees. However, in spite of this the TED people have decided to censor Rupert Sheldrake, a man with a genuine unique theory and one who is never strident or bilious, or fundamentalist in outlook. TED have taken a nosedive - not that they were regarded with much allure in any case.

Science, as opposed to myth

Lovely piece by Rens van der Sluijs on the difference there might be or not be between conventional science and traditional cosmology/ mythology. See dec 18th 2012. Conventional is supposed to continually reinvent itself following new insights - and traditional cosmology is generally thought to be static and looking backwareds in time.

True Polar Wander

At ... apparently, computer simulated models are telling scientists we are in a phase of 'true polar wander' - which sounds a bit like the 2012 thing (it ain't over yet). Solid body drift, which is known as 'true polar wander' is said to cause a shift in the orientation of Earth's landmasses and is distinct from the movement of tectonic plates or movements of the magnetic poles - which is known as 'apparent polar wander'.


At the New Chronology Yahoo group C14 dating at Tell el-Dab'a is being discussed this past week. A 2010 story was that it was consistently found that C14 dates were older than orthodox chronology - and older than Bietak dated his various archaeological layers. Now, it seems that C14 dates from the time of Hatshepsut appear to support orthodox historical dates - so what is going on? Why isn't any of this being published so that other people can have a look at the data?

Some more on mammoths

At ... did you know there were mammoths in North Africa - and they evolved to live in warm tropical forests? The Columbian mammoth is known fron N America and as far south as Mexico. The Woolly Mammoth first appeared in Euroasia but migrated, at some stage, into North America - as far south as Kansas.

Opposition to New Ideas

At ... there is a post by an Electric Universe enthusiast who has experienced problems in converting others. He can't get his side of the story across - people are not listening to him. Perhaps he is proselytising. He explains that attempts to discuss EU usually end up with attacks on the people behind EU - namely, accusing them of being cranks, purveyors of pseudo-science, and that kind of thing, without actually addressing the issues involved.