COFFEE!!! Venomous dino-turkey ate my pigeon?

After telling us that many dinosaurs they told us about didn't exist after all, then telling us that sprinting crocidiles ate them, now they're spinning more stories. This dinosaur had feathers, and poison fangs!

Dinosaur with feathers and fangs prowled forests like a predatory turkey

Yes, suuure it did. This is comedy hour, right?

Analysis of the dinosaur's fang-like teeth revealed grooves that could channel poison from glands set into each side of the creature's jawbone, researchers said.

"This is an animal about the size of a turkey," said Larry Martin, curator of vertebrate palaeontology at the Natural History Museum and Biodiversity Research Centre at the University of Kansas. "It's a specialised predator of small dinosaurs and birds."

That Biodiversity Research Center, that's paid for by taxes, right? So you've got to make amazing claims to keep your funding coming. Obviously I'm not suggesting any wrongdoing, but a bird-eating predatory venomous turkeysaurus hardly passes the laugh test of common sense, which is the test I try to apply to all science. They go on, with more intricate details about the life of the bag of bones:

"You wouldn't have seen it coming," said co-author David Burnham. "It would have swooped down behind you from a low-hanging tree branch and attacked."

"Once the teeth were embedded in your skin the venom could seep into the wound. The prey would rapidly go into shock, but it would still be living, and it might have seen itself being slowly devoured by this raptor," Burnham added.

It's amazing how these guys with their beards and sandals and tenure, sitting in university rooms so far from the real world, can so confidently know so much about a creature which they say lived so long ago and they've only just found the bones of.

Find out: why there is a design controversy!!

Warmists crush dissenter

Johnny Ball, the "English God of Numbers" and science educator was recently on stage at, of all things, an "Atheists' Christmas Show" which sounds turgid enough and I can just imagine what the audience would have looked like, when he made a shocking transgression of the Darwinist Commandments. He dared to doubt Global Warming and point out that the whole charade is a tattered array of fraud and bad science. So how did this "scientific and liberal intellectual" audience receive this heresy? By shouting him down and booing him off the stage.

Ball, 71, claimed that spiders’ flatulence was more damaging to the environment than fossil fuels, and criticised the ‘bad science’ of global warming during a performance at a Christmas show in celebration of atheism and science.

Audience members at ‘Nine Lessons and Carols for Godless People’ at the Bloomsbury Theatre, London responded with slow handclaps, whistles, jeers until he left the stage.

That's how they do the science nowadays.

Now folks, I'm a free speech science journalist writer of non fiction who helped write the Canadian Constitution, so I find this shouting down of opposing voices as despicable as the sound of Dr Strangelove's jackboots stamping on a puppy's face. So I'm glad to see that Mr Ball has been given space in The British Express to expand on his claims without being shouted down by an ideologically-driven crowd. He makes worthwhile and substantial points which certainly can't be debunked in less than a minute by anyone with a search engine. For example he describes how volcanoes produce by far the greatest amounts of CO2 which sounds sensible to me, no matter what any so-called "experts" (who are probably paid for by taxes anyway) at the US Geological Service might say.

Chances are any warming there is - which there isn't, because polar bears are fine - is being caused by all the heat from the bonfires that the tax-funded warming alarmist scammers are burning the dissidents on.

After Climategate, how long until Darwingate?

Of course I've been following the Climategate scandal in detail, reading both Rush Limbaugh's and Sarah Palin's careful analysis of the slam-dunk red-handed caught-with-their-pants-down evidence that all the world's climate so-called scientists were definitely engaged in systematic fraud as well as maybe money laundering and possibly treason, although I'm not making any accusation. Of course even before this tsunami of evidence that they were "adding in the real temperatures" to the data to hide the decline in real temperatures the whole "man-made climate change" ideology was transparent nonsense. Changes in the climate are not caused by carbon dioxide (which is plant food) but by warming or cooling. That supposed experts could have been taking their public paychecks for decades without noticing this simple fact is an indictment of the depths to which science has sunk.

But how long until Darwingate? Not long now that their edifice is already crumbling because insiders will have an incentive to leak the academic elite's secrets in exchange for a better deal for themselves.

Find out why there's a controversy!!!

Why collide large hadrons?

The Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland, which cost billions of taxpayer dollars and opened with a big fanfare before breaking down because some of its gas got too warm (seriously!) then was fixed before breaking down again because a bird dropped a piece of bread of it (seriously! French bread!) is back up and running again after having a staffer arrested for terrorism, so I can tell him he won't be welcome in Canada if he tries to come here to live.
I've no idea what conceivable benefit this "experiment" to supposedly probe the finest scale of matter and the earliest moments of the universe can bring anyone, other than make some boyish-looking young man who can't even be bothered to wear a tie very excited.
SO if no more birds drop bread on it and nothing else goes wrong whatever will this hugely expensive excercise in taxpayer-funded "science" achieve? Some science journalists would try to actually find out what it will do, or appreciate discovery for its own sake but I'd like to point out that IT BROKE DOWN WHEN A BIRD DROPPED BREAD ON IT thus is inherently ridiculous. It's an example of the sort of so-called "science" that fills whole books with fancy-pants equations but doesn't help to dig anyone out of a snowdrift.