"Darwin Day" Topic

ya…so what?

Edmund Burke said

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

For me, this is an argument within my power to add a voice to, and well worth making. (Not largely on TMP I have to say).

I would have prefered this on Youtube, so we could here the good professor in his own words.

This is more PZ Myers – his theme "Arguing with Creationists"

link

Here is another view which explains why Creationis thing as they do:

balloon-juice.com/?p=32991

For an analysis :

link

The masses must be kept ignorant and pacified. The ruling elite will keep the truth locked up, and dole out "truthiness" to the mob.

This is true of the subject of Biblical studies where the accedmics have one set of facts and the public another:

link

Avalos is a Professor of Biblical Studies who does not hold to this silence.

Hi

So, now, you are asserting that creationism is taught in texas schools?

hardly.

Imrael, who is standing silent? My point is this, the above are correct links, the ID guys have an agenda, though hardly the "elite versus pleb" inferred above. I believe these guys have honest flawed beliefs. You can reason with people or use force.

Some of you are not advocating using reason, but suggesting that somehow we create a version of society where these guys aren't allowed. Which is thought police.

R

I for one am not asserting that creationism is taught in Texas, or other states because of the buying power of the Texas School Board. I will assert that some members of the Texas School Board advocate teaching creationism in some form with the objective of undermining evolutionary science. That is a matter of record.

In the piece posted above on Strauss and his ideas to undermine the Enlightment because I thought it was interesting. It is one strand in the movement against evolution. Remember, evolution is seen by the IDiots and Creatards as leading to an atheistic weltanschauung.

Do we outlaw Creationist belief? We cannot and still have a free society. Attempts a newspeak, in the guise of political correctness, have attempted to change perception by changing language might work but at what cost?

No, in a reasonable society we need scientists to do something that does not come naturally to them; they have to become better communicators to the general public. Trouble is when they do the IDiots/Creatards whine "oh they are so militant," "evolution is a religion," "stop being so shrill," etc.

Let the Creatrdas speak, we adopt the position in very crude terms as "We've fossils. You've a fossilized Bronze Age myth. We win." We use real science against their pseudo-science. Scientists do not debate Creatards directly; that gives them standing they do not deserve amongst their supporters. We do expose their dishonesty like "The Wedge Strategy" of the Discovery Institute.

We point out the political influence of the Creatards and show them trying to win by political backroom deals what they have lost in the laboratories.

We fight them in elections; we fight them in print and on the internet. We keep fighting, until their ideas are as fringe as a non-heliocentric universe and flat earth. We ridicule and vilify them. AND WE NEVER STOP. They aren't going to.

Welome zum Kulturkampf

Rocky – ths implication of Doug's "So What" is to do nothing – that was what I was picking up on.

And I say nothing about Texan schools and nothing about preventing freedom of speech, just that theres a rational citizens civic responsility to oppose teaching children lies and nonsense.

Rocky, when you say:

So, now, you are asserting that creationism is taught in texas schools?

you are putting words in our mouths……… again. Please contain the argument to something that actually WAS said. For the record, I couldn't care less if creationism is taught in school. Keep it out of Science and put it in Religion where it belongs.

I pointed out the toxic intellectual environment that exists in Texas, where science educators can get fired for emailing information on a "Darwinist" lecture. Because said email contradict the limited world view of ones superiors.

This is especially poignant as the state was undergoing review of it's textbooks. I'm sure someone is mailing free copies of "Of Panadas and People" to the TEA already. I think it is reasonable to assert that the Creationists are preparing the groundwork for another Dover-like showdown in Texas as they tried in Ohio and other states.

Some of you are not advocating using reason, but suggesting that somehow we create a version of society where these guys aren't allowed.

I haven't said this anywhere. RAF and Imrael haven't said this. Either did Gunny. Where are you getting this from?

Which is thought police.

As usual, you have it reversed. Christina Comer suffered the consequences of her "thought crime" when she got fired.

Your response was, "Ya….so what?"

Ralph

Great links, RAF. I'll have to go over them at a more leisurely pace later tonight. I can't comment on them as they are Dawg housable topics. If anything of this quality shows up on the Fez, you guys will let me know?

Ralph

Theres a broader picture here of those who oppose rationality in a number of spheres using free speech arguments to propogate their views but having recourse to libel laws, workplace bullying etc against their opponents.

Creationism is not the biggest problem in the UK at present – here we have "libel tourism" by US drug companies suppressing criticism, attempts to suppress evidence-based criticism of Chiropracters and Homeopathy, and holocaust deniers using threats and bluster to attempt to intimidate critics.

It seems that willfully choosing ignorance and stupidity is matched by consciously discarding fairness and openness.

Imrael, thanks for that information it's frightening.

It's interesting to note that again the Church of England was lobbying hard to be exempted from UK equality laws that were going through Parliament at present.

We've started a new page; so I didn't want TJ to use the excuse that he'd missed it. So here we go again, repeating my question of January 21st, which repeated my question of January 15th, which repeated my question of December 19th, which repeaded my question of December 12th and so on……

TJ to remind you this is what I want answered:

When a Prof. of Biology gives a lectures on Youtube then the contents can be rejected because of it appeared on Youtube. So in what circumstances would that lecture be acceptable to the creationists? Could such a format also be shared with the rest of the TMP community?

I found this looking for smoething else on my pc and thought I'd share:

The Evolution of Intelligent Design
By Paul DesOrmeaux

This article appeared originally in the December 2008 Skeptical Briefs newsletter and is used by permission of the Skeptical Inquirer.

Following is a concise, authoritative, and warped timeline that more or less accurately presents the history and "facts" behind the development of creationism, creation science, Intelligent Design, and more importantly, scientific illiteracy. For an alternative, but parallel, perspective of the "other theory," purchase the 27th Edition of Darwin's final publication, "The Human Evolution Colouring Book."

Days 1 through 6 In the beginning, God creates night and day, firmaments, heaven, fruit trees, poison ivy, seeds, marijuana, every living creature–including a male and female, beasts, fowl, creepy-crawly things, and killer bees–the concept of multiplication, and then, unfortunately, pulls a groin muscle.

Day 7 through the 16th century Most of Europe buys into the facts about creation as laid out in the Bible. Without the oppressive burden of science and reason, Europeans are quite religious and thankful for the deity's blessings, such as the murderous Crusades, the Black Death, the Inquisition, witch hunts, and brand-new Christian torture devices, including the rack, thumbscrews, the head crusher, and the saw, to name a few. Toward the end of the 16th century, the first YMCA is built.

16th century to 1858 Although creationists don't yet exist, they begin getting somewhat nervous because naturalists discover different fossils in different rock strata, suggesting that different animals may have existed in different eras, and that Earth may be older than the biblical contention of 6,000 years, especially after the discovery of a 35,000-year-old fossilized enlarged prostrate.

1859 Charles Darwin publishes On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, which he later modifies to increase sales by shortening it to Harry Potter and the Origin of Species. His book suggests that humans evolved through a system of natural selection, which "creationists" immediately attack as laughable and absurd and offer the more reasoned scientific version that humans were made in God's image from clay, mud, and a rib.

1910 By now, the theory of evolution is widely accepted by most scientists, but there is a clear undercurrent of hostility and opposition from certain religious groups since the best-selling bumper sticker of the year reads "Darwin's A Dodo!"

1918 A number of anti-Darwinists voice their concern that teaching evolution as a fact in schools will undermine the creation story, overshadow the moral lessons of Christianity, and negatively impact Christian fundamentalist student's self-esteem.

1922 William Jennings Bryan initiates a campaign to convince state lawmakers to ban the teaching of evolution in public schools and promises students an alternate textbook with plenty of pictures of a naked Eve and Adam cavorting in the Garden of Eden.

1925 After Tennessee passes a law prohibiting the teaching of evolution in state-funded schools, substitute school teacher John Scopes stands trial and is found guilty for teaching Darwin's theory. After several appeals, the charges are eventually dismissed on the technicality that, while in the jury box, the jurors should not have been allowed to derisively dress in monkey costumes.
For the next half century or so, the anti-evolution proponents prevail and the teaching of evolution practically disappears from public-school texts, with the notable exception of the Fun with Dick and Jane and the Leakeys reader.

1957 When the Soviets launch the first satellite, Sputnik, into outer space, the U.S. government has a cold-war anxiety attack and passes the National Defense Education Act for the purpose of emphasizing science education in public schools, which includes the teaching of evolution and the physics of the Wham-o Frisbee.

1959 The one-hundredth anniversary of Darwin's famous book "sparks" a renewed interest in evolutionary biology. Readers from all over the country rush to the bookstores to purchase the bestseller ‘Twixt Twelve and Twenty by singer Pat Boone.

1961 Henry Morris and John Whitcomb publish The Genesis Flood, which advocates a literal interpretation of the Bible, meaning the earth is somewhere between 6,000 and 10,000 years old, a global flood once covered the earth as described in Genesis, and the Noah family is kept awake for 40 days and 40 nights by the relentless and vicious fighting between the Brachiosauruses and Tyrannosaurus Rexes, as well as the nonstop barking of two extremely nervous poodles.

1963 A Christian creation organization, the Creation Research Society, is formed to disprove all scientific theories of evolution, while at the same time use science to prove the Genesis account of creation. The first meeting ends in chaos and arguments when one of the members forgets to bring the necessary scientific equipment for testing their hypothesis: a slide rule, a copy of the Old Testament, a Ouija board, and a Magic 8-Ball.

1968 The U.S. Supreme Court in Epperson vs. Arkansas rules that the 1928 Arkansas law banning the teaching of evolution in public schools is unconstitutional because it's "…contrary to the mandate of the First, and in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, and was written on the side of a brown grocery bag."

1972 Henry Morris forms the Institute for Creation Research to promote research and the teaching of "creation science," a novel approach that uses the "scientific" method to prove the Genesis account of the Bible by offering scientific answers to questions like: What was God sitting on when he created the universe out of nothing? The ICR is still active today as a leading advocate for creation science and shows its dedication to the Bible by soliciting donations in shekels only.

1981 The Louisiana legislature passes the "Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science in Public School Instruction Act," which requires that if schools are going to teach evolution, they must also teach creation science, and if they are going to teach foreign languages, they must also teach speaking in tongues.

1987 After two lower courts rule against Louisiana's 1981Creation Act–another attempt to introduce religious doctrine in public schools–the state appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court (Edwards v Aguillard). The majority rule that the Act is unconstitutional, a decision reached by nine judicial coin flips: seven heads and two tails. The two "dissenting" Justices, conservatives Scalia and Rehnquist, write that the ruling is "obviously a sign from Satan."

1989 A newly published textbook, Of Pandas and People, attacks the theory of evolution and, without mentioning a supernatural god, offers evidence that living forms, as well as the universe, were designed by some intelligent force, or intelligent designer, who also spontaneously wrote, published, and designed Of Pandas and People from landfill waste.

1991 Philip Johnson, considered the "father of Intelligent Design," publishes Darwin on Trial, in which he exhaustively challenges most of the evidence for evolution by natural selection using classical argument techniques, such as logic, facts, and asking God what he should think.

1993 A revised edition of Of Pandas and People is intelligently redesigned.

1996 Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box is published, in which he sets out to prove that "irreducibly complex" biological systems could not have randomly evolved from simpler and disparate biological parts and therefore must have been "designed" by an undefined intelligent designer or "Lone Arranger." Behe's examples of "irreducible complexity" include the perfectly structured human eye, the bacterial flagellum, and the U.S. Tax Code.

1996 Pope John Paul II shocks the Christian world by declaring his belief that the Catholic religion and evolution are compatible; however, he assures his flock that God is responsible for the human soul, which first appears about 550 million years ago in the Cambrian fossil record.

2005 In Kitzmiller v. Dover, a handful of parents, supported by atheist-like organizations, bring a lawsuit in federal court against the Dover Area School District, which is trying to introduce its public-school students to Intelligence Design as a possible alternative theory to evolution. Judge Jones decides in favor of the plaintiffs, writing: "The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory, and I'd like to thank you atheists for blowing my chances at a U.S. Supreme Court vacancy under the Bush administration!"

2008 A new documentary entitled 'Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed' in This Movie ridicules the theory of evolution, strongly suggests that evolution inspired the Holocaust, portrays ID advocates as victims of discrimination, and supports the indisputable scientific fact that co-writer and star, Ben Stein, has serious structural problems in his brain's frontal lobe. Ironically, the movie actually proves why the public needs MORE science in the classroom. It walks away with one Cannes Film Festival award: the Golden Dunce Cap.

As an aside I've always found the Church of England's neat sidestep of employment laws amusing – apparently the Church doesnt employ a vicar, God does.

Then let "God" pay them….

Hi

Ralph, note your first objection. The line ended in a question mark indicating asking a question which is not "putting words in our mouths."

You are correct, the woman should not have lost her job, IF THIS WAS THE REASON as opposed to an accusation. HOWEVER, the complaint implies a solution.

Like Pete, I prefer open confrontation.

How do you prevent using bluster to bully?

In short, you have pointed out wrong minded individuals, I see implications in your vent. This might be solved if you just tell me how you solve these evils.

Remember, my story involves being an archeology student and having people demand I PROVE the literal truth of the Book of Mormon. Similarly, go to a newstand, buy "Biblical Archology" and observe the regular letters from clergy complaining, demanding that archeology should PROVE the King James. This is a very old story in my life.

With these people around me, I never got anything done by laughing at them or sneering at them. Never once did it work to say "oh, go shut up". Rather, rational engagment usually works.

However, once, a ministry of Jehova's Witnesses attemted an exorcism. This one time my trying to point out that this wasn't part of their version of the liturgy didn't work either.

Now, I ask you, on your worst encounter with IDers, did any one get together a group of holy rollers to cast out the demon in you? Huh?

Rocky

I once had a group of Christian friends-and-aquaintances hold a prayer meeting for my conversion (well, not just me – they work through a list i think).

They tell you when they'll be having the meeting and ask you to keep in a receptive frame of mind during that time. I think I went to the pub and forgot :)

"Creationism is not the biggest problem in the UK at present – here we have "libel tourism" by US drug companies suppressing criticism, attempts to suppress evidence-based criticism of Chiropracters and Homeopathy, and holocaust deniers using threats and bluster to attempt to intimidate critics"

Creationist and holocaust deniers are on my all time list.

We have the same problems here, even in our bibel belt true creationist are few and far bewteen, but "alternativ" "medicin" is the rave at the moment, with healers diet sumpliments ect.

Beeing a skeptic and ratinalist around here is like wadeing though at times.

Imrael I listen to the BBC "Sunday" program most weeks, and it's interesting the number of news reports that crop up which are basically "Yes, well that's that law, but because of our special position as a cult we want exemptions."

Creationist and holocaust deniers are on my all time list

Oops, I just remembered Bill has told us that we can't call Creationists IDiots, and whilst silent on the subject Creatards he's side with the those 'special people' the Creationists I'm sure.

So lets follow some logic:

Since holocaust deniers deny history and creationis deny science.

Lets call the Creationists/IDiots/Creatards "Science Deniers".

The Science-deniers are at it again, this time in my home state of MN. Fortunaetly the Representative on the Schools subcomittee overseas the science standards if from my district. In looting at evidence to throw her way against to old 'teach the controvasy' arguement I came across the BBC documentary, enjoy:

link

This explanes evolution better then anything els
YouTube link

Wow! When did I miss this thread?

There must be some giant debate going on. Is it evolution related?

Technically Bayonet it's about science and psuedo-science. With the scienists fighting science-deniers.

In that case let me put in my 2 cents. I think evolution (and Global warming for that matter) is proven and has been proven. There is literally dozens of examples of evolution. You would have to walk around the world with a blind fold that says "you are right!" on the inside to not see it. The idea that humans just happen to appear one day is silly to me. Not that I don't believe in god, I don't think Bible should be taken literally.

Opinions in the blue fez (this was being discussed on the previous page) I agree with those who have said that the Fez is overwhelmingly rightwing. More right wing than any other political board I have seen. (Really like 98% of the threads are right wing). Not that I have a problem with people believing what they want. But I hardly agree with them.

Like I said, just my 2 cents :]

Bayo, why link Global Warming and Evolution in the same statement? Kind of weird.

Yes, the planet SEEMS to be going through a warming phase. No, humans are not to blame. That the warming is anthropogenically caused is the issue, not the climate changes going on. And there is not a shred of proof that mankind is to blame for the changes in the climate. The latest exposés on how the "evidence" has been manipulated to manipulate politicians is damning the cause of the UN's IPCC.

As for evolution being proven beyond a doubt: yes, it is real enough, but it does not in any way address the validity of religious belief, either pro or con. Evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis: and that question leads directly to questioning what TFW (we are not allowed to discuss Deity on TMP) is and has to do with evolution.

Of course, the IDers and Creationists (biblical literalists and believers in biblical inerrancy) are laboring under enormous, building cognitive dissonance when they deny evolution. And even more, when they deny science because it makes mistakes. Science, being self-correcting, is accepted by all rational-thinking religious people….

I was just pointing out my stance on evolution and global warming.

I don't mean to make this 25+ page thread into Global warming, but.
>15% of all co2 on earth is man made. That is a pretty large percentage.
>co2 is a known green house gas.
> Climate-gate doesn't mean all of the DOZENS of studies are false.
>2009 was the 5th hottest year on record.

On the religion thing, that was a tiny tiny mention. On previous pages other mentioned religious implications of evolution.

The only religious implications are strictly Fundie (literalist) Christian. No other religions that I know of, not even the greatest majority of Christians, have any trouble with evolution.

The studies of CO2 are controversial because depending on what is being compared to when alters everything that can be said about it. Even the 15% manmade is not a hard, agreed upon stat. CO2 doesn't stay in the air, it settles. How fast it settles is the argument. Even the laymen's terms "greenhouse gas" and "blanket" and etc. are misleading in the way they are popularly written up. (I can't seem to talk any further on this topic either, without it going all political….)

I don't want to derail this into a global warming rant but Bayonet is dead on.

1)Every single scientific organization on this planet has a position paper indicating that man made global warming is a problem and is on the rise.

2)The vast majority of peer reviewed scientific papers published also confirms this.

3)The individuals who deny this are not backed up by the research or the consensus of their peers.

4)All of the official associations that deny man made global warming has such low standards of association that I could be a member of them.

As I know very little about the science involved, I must take the "argument from authority" pill and swallow it, just as I do when paleontologists tell me the dinosaur bones surely show how evolution works.

Michael Shermer has done a study on how the anti man made global warming movement clearly mimics science deniers in evolution and holocaust deniers. There is more to this on an old Fez thread, written when I used to haunt that place. Some of the arguments would conjure up the spirit of TJ.

Ralph

Now look at that! I loose my computer for a few days (hard drive failure) and when I come back we are on to global warming! I love this site!

:-)

Pete

That is totally my fault. Maybe egregious hijacking should be a Dawghousable offense too.

Ralph

Maybe we should just accept that some of us are natural skeptics and fear conspiracies to control us. AGCC is just the latest threat after the UN itself, to trigger the establish of a multinational government. I'm not saying that climate change isn't real. I am not even saying that studies are not showing that mankind is a contributor. What I am saying is that this "blame" of the developed nations is too good a chance to pass up to get them to pay for their destruction of the planet, i.e. chip in to help the developing nations. The disconnect is obvious to me: how can taxing those who have, to (theoretically) upgrade those who have not, help the problem of AGCC? If we increase the number of developed nations, BEFORE we achieve a non CO2 producing energy grid, all we are going to see is more CO2. Talk about putting the cart before the horse! Yet that is exactly what carbon credits, et al. the schemes to milk money from the developed nations (especially the USA) is all about: get the money out of them (us) first, fix the problem of AGCC later. It is a scam, a huge politically motivated perversion of the data by those who have positioned themselves to reap the profits. (go ahead, DawgHaus me, you bastards….)

Hi

Bad Science?

Look, the Vegans do bad science as well. And it could be argued that Vegans are a religion AND anti-evolution in that they offer that we evolved to thrive on a lifestyle that is impossible for a creature produced by 3,000,000 years of hunter/gatherer omnivore lifestyle.

And Global Warming science? See there are problems here. There is no money in "all is well". Yesterday a new report came out explaining the last decade of cooling by citing the "unexpected" cooling by upper atmosphere water vapor levels.

I get stuck with "observer bias". No matter what, GW is real, even when it isn't because of the greater good of controlling the lifestyle of americans. I see, like doug, a sort of conspriacy. Whatever the cited environmental problem, you have people insisting that they need to control YOU. Thus, the government wants to raise taxes, control your thermostat, and even tell you to wear sweaters.

Oh, and buy local food because of transportation's carbon footprint. This last is a sore point with ME. WE are supposed to reduce our carbon footprint that involves growing and sending food to, say, Darfur and Haiti, but the carbon footprint of, say, Europe and the UK does not include food flown to Europe.

Thus, If it were just science, the "solutions" would be different.

Rocky

What worries me is the way that we have science-deniers saying that global warming isn't happening because they do not like the 'solutions' being offered by the enviromentalist lobby.

Let the science stand.

Then we can look at other changes. There seems to be a higher concentration of certain gasses in the atmosphere. Is that something that can be naturally corrected? Does it need correcting? What happens ifwe do nothing?

I have insufficient, reliable evidence to draw a conclusion; but I tend to be distrustful of the enviomentalists and their allies.

The greatest evidence for global warming is is that Penn & Teller can't clame it's not true,

Thiese guys are REALY fast on the draw at calling stuff , infact some times they are to fast, way to fast.

But even they edmited that they don't know, they honestly couldn't say it was

They had no problems saying buying climate quotas is and I agree on that, but in the fact of global warming it self they couldn't say, they hoenstly didn't know,

And for them that the same as givng their undying suport for it.

Penn and Teller? Greatest evidence for GW? Shouldn't you include a with that?…

I don't see how you can pump all of these originally dormant (I don't mean dormant but the word escapes me at the moment) toxins into a primarily closed ecological/chemical/physical system and then not expect them to have an effect. I believe that many people just think of "Climate Change" or "Global warming" in relation to the weather and sea levels and do not see the wider picture. The real problem as I see it is the effect that greenhouse gases along with other exotic compounds/plastics are having on other areas of the human supporting ecology of the planet:

link

Now, "Climate Change" has of course always happened and extinction events (Chicxulub etc.) show us that species can survive and evolve in surprising conditions. However if the bottom layer of the food chain is destroyed, not just in the ocean but on land as well, where does that leave us?

Just a thought… :-)

Pete

We have measured CO2, and found that it has risen.

That rise co-incides with human activity that releases CO2 from it's stored state.

Scientists have shown how a rise in atmospheric CO2 insulates the earth, preventing heat from escaping.

Temperatures are rising world wide- that has been measured.

Rapid ecological changes in past history have caused mass extinction events, especially among higher life forms.

hmmmm….

"Prevents heat from escaping" sounds like a good thing, if we are about to slip back into another ice age. Isn't it about time? According to the long-term cycles that I looked at a few years ago, this "warm spell" we've been enjoying is about typical for the limit of earlier warm spells. Earth is typically COLD far longer than it is warm. And as the Earth cools/ages, we can expect the cold spells to get longer yet. So anything WE can do to avert the next ice age is a good thing as I see it….

Hi

Hussar, and your syllogism illustrates the problem.

CO2 has risen, but there isn't a direct correlation, but an associative one.

The previous warming periods, including the one that led to the norse colonizing Greenland when it was GREEN, are not associated with human activity and pre-date the industrial revolution, as did the previous peaks going back for the last half million years.

Just last week, a new study came out indicating that the reason the last decade was cooler than predicted, it is slightly cooler than the 90s, was that the Stratosphere had dried out but was now more moist. Thus, while water vapor more of an effect in trapping heat, it appearantly produced cooling. Thus, in one article, the usual suspects admit it has cooled and did so by factors not considered in the "modeling" programs that are being used to support GW.

Pete, the "bottom layer" are the micro flora in the ocean. In the 70s, Jacques Cousteau was the spokesman for the UN panel on climate change that "prooved" that with the death of the Plankton by 1990, we would all die and, wait for it………..wait for it………result in global cooling and death. And the solution was……..wait for it……..wait for it……..making americans pay while reducing their lifestyle to that of the 1920s.

It doesn't work to just separate the science from the politics.

Edward Abbey when he was alive in the 70s was promoting the idea of reducing the world's population to 25million total world wide.

The problem is complex and ill understood, but the solutions are simple and political and pretty scary.

Rocky

CO2 has risen, but there isn't a direct correlation, but an associative one.

Rocky there is a direct correlation. If you mean there is no direct causation then you are correct. Correlation does not equal causation, but it does give you a place to start looking.

Just last week, a new study came out indicating….

Then surely the results are too new to be properly tested, criticized and duplicated. Of course you have avoided dealing with 1000's of research articles that support the existence of AGCC (to use Doug's term).

Did you see in last month's Scientific America where thawing permafrost releases methane in the Arctic? Increases in methane levels have only started since the 70's. About 1/3 to 1/2 of all the worlds permafrost is now within 1 to 1 1/2 degrees of thawing. The methane was fixed into the permafrost ice 11,000 years ago, at the end of the last Ice Age.

The rapidity of the thawing and the amount of metric tons released indicate an anthropomorphic cause. Katey Walter from U of Alaska is the predominant American scientist looking at this:

K Walter, et al. Science, Vol. 443, Sept. 2006

K Walter, et al. Science, Vol. 318, Oct. 2007

G. Grosse, K Walter, and V. Romanovsky, NASA Carbon Cycle Sciences Project, April 2008-March 2011 (ongoing)

G Grosse, K Walter, et al, Project 0732735 of the National Science Foundation, July 2008-June 2011 (ongoing)

But I guess Rocky's unnamed atmospheric study trumps poor Katey's work.

Jacques Cousteau was the spokesman for the UN panel on climate change that "prooved" that…….

Hate to tell you but Jacques Cousteau was not a scientist, has never done independent scientific research and has never published any research. That is not to diminish his achievements, but to put things in proper perspective. His formal training consists of being a naval gunner. He was a bright guy, but not a scientist.

It doesn't work to just separate the science from the politics.

Hmmm. Intertwining politics with environmental issues is as damaging as is intertwining politics with the biological sciences.

Whatever the political climate (no pun intended) the science is either correct or incorrect. As it stands now the current consensus amongst environmental scientists is plain to see. Simply google any association and society and find out for yourself.

Until then, I will assume that my understanding of this topic is as poor as everyone elses on the TMP, and I will accept the current consensus from those who do understand it much better than a bunch of war gamers.

Edward Abbey when he was alive in the 70s was promoting the idea of reducing the world's population to 25million total world wide.

The problem is complex and ill understood, but the solutions are simple and political and pretty scary.

Ya…..but it has nothing to do with the validity of the science.

And Global Warming science? See there are problems here. There is no money in "all is well"

Utter BS, Rocky, and you know better!

So if I'm an immunologist at a research university and I make up provocative BS like "immunization causes autism" I can actually look forward to being better funded by the university and the research councils? BS! If I was that guy I'd worry about my scientific credibility and possible tenure revocation.

That is a fully bogus attack and I challenge you to provide any evidence that can back up your statement.

Plus I don't think you are really in a position to point out "problems" in climate research any more than I am in a position to point out "problems" concerning tensile strengths of the current materials that go into the airplanes that you work on.

Ralph

"Prevents heat from escaping" sounds like a good thing,….

Maybe you should read a little about atmospheric conditions on Venus.

Ralph

Just last week, a new study came out indicating that the reason the last decade was cooler than predicted, it is slightly cooler than the 90s, was that the Stratosphere had dried out but was now more moist. Thus, while water vapor more of an effect in trapping heat, it appearantly produced cooling. Thus, in one article, the usual suspects admit it has cooled and did so by factors not considered in the "modeling" programs that are being used to support GW.

And I think this is half the problem, we still don't really understand the complete picture when it comes to modelling the effects of man made contributions to the earth's "natural" biological/meteorological/chemical/physical processes.

Although I am not a proponent of the Gaia Hypothesis (I believe there is a clear symbiotic relationship between planet inhabitants but I don't consider the planet itself to be "alive"), there clearly is an integral link between all of the sciences that the current debate on "Climate Change" in the popular press seems prone to ignore and that scientifically it is almost impossible to model accurately to predictable results.

Put simply, we don't understand enough to paint the complete picture but the outline is becoming clear.

Pete

And based on an "outline" we are supposed to submit to a political consensus and pay penalties, then watch as that money goes into the pockets of the aggitators and is wasted on developing the undeveloped nations? As I said, FIX THE PROBLEM FIRST, then help the disavantaged nations. Show me the solution, the better technology, the improved non CO2 producing power grids, and I will gladly contribute my two-pence worth to help pay foer the changes. But don't tell me that foxxil fuels are killing the planet and it's all my fault, and expect me to sit back and watch while my lifestyle is destroyed to allow a world elite to continue on as per usual: only we will be forced to change, not any of "them"….

Doug- US is 4% of the population and 20% of the energy usage. If the US, China and India don't start reducing consumption then we are doomed.

Doug, This is a science board and I am discussing science, not politics. I am happy to discuss the scientific implications of anything, the political implications should be left to the Blue Fez.

Pete

Back to evolution, I'm in another debate with a guy on another forum.

And he's realy hard to talk to because be belives that scientist lie and make up stuff, and don't belvie in peer reviewed prosses.

Which also lead to the fact that be belvies that stuff creationist just make up, is equal in thruth as something reseasched be thousands of people with real education, thats is then tested and restested in peer review, before a single person even wants to talk about it as real science

But don't tell me that foxxil fuels are killing the planet and it's all my fault, and expect me to sit back and watch while my lifestyle is destroyed to allow a world elite to continue on as per usual: only we will be forced to change, not any of "them"….

Doug, I agree with Pete that politics belong off this board, but you must understand……..based on consumption of the planet's resources, you ARE the world's elite.

Ralph

And this so-called elite created the very infrastructure that everyone else apes. If 4% of the world's population uses 20% of the energy in question, I am sure it is because that 20% is produced by the 4% that uses it. We're not taking anything away from anyone. When they get their own energy grid going they can have the same bennies of a modern, developed nation lifestyle too.

Looks like yous guys have mandated a DawgHausing for me. Only a matter of time, Bill being busy and all. I'll just say "see you later" now….

Hi

Ralph, your complaint about the new, peer reviewed report on atmosphere "wetting" is dismissed because it adds complication? I don't get it. Remember, any IPCC report was
"new" at one time or another. You make assumptions to dismiss.

Did you also miss the east anglia scandal about fabricated or edited information?

Or the recently revised proof involving Himalayan glaciers?

Or the tree ring study in Siberia that prooved selective?

Science isn't based on consensus.

Locally, I was involved with the Fleishman and Pons "Cold Fusion" problems. I proceed with caution.

And you prove my point, Ralph. Without context, you cite that the US produces 20% of the CO2, but is only 4% of the population. Fully 1/4th of that carbon footprint involves the US growing food for other countries. Or relief for Indonesia and Haiti and Africa. You would punish the US by insisting that our carbon debt be reduced for individual americans who PRODUCE this surplus that allows us to save others, without any other consideration.

And that gets back to the problem with GW to me. It is more complex than "industry is bad", but the solution is no more complex than "US must sacrifice".

Thus, if the solution said "world wide, everyone" then it would be a possible science based thought. But the politics are that the US sacrifice while the other 90% of the world "catch up". And the "hope" is that while doing it they will eventually go green.

Back to evolution. Darwin didn't get to "evolution by natural selection" by doing DNA or more modern conventional science. Rather he observed the results of evolution in action and postulated the reason. The only counter by your friend is "god did it". I don't know your educational background, but well before Darwin, the postulate was that of "spontaneous generation". And various tests were devisec to test this concept. The idea was that God just invented new life as needed, and part of that was that meat rotted. Part of that was the seeming appearance out of nowhere of fly larve. The test to prove spontaneous wasn't happening, but that fly eggs were just to small to observe was that of placing a cloth OVER a jar of rotting meat. And, of course, the larve appeared ON the cloth, suggesting that either god missed, or there was a more natural reason.

Right now, the only "proof" the IDers have of special creation is Genesis, which, again, doesn't explain why we get new species since genesis.

Rocky

Hi Rocky,

Interesting points……

Ralph, your complaint about the new, peer reviewed report on atmosphere "wetting" is dismissed because it adds complication? I don't get it. Remember, any IPCC report was
"new" at one time or another. You make assumptions to dismiss.

I didn't dismiss this report or anyone else. You're putting words in my mouth…..as you tend to do, I see. Please re-read my comments.

Did you also miss the east anglia scandal about fabricated or edited information?

No I didn't actually. This scandal, (if it is legit) contradicts global warming with as little import as the Piltdown scandal disproved Darwinism.

Or the recently revised proof involving Himalayan glaciers?

Or the tree ring study in Siberia that prooved selective?

References, please?

Science isn't based on consensus.

No it isn't, but that is not what was said. There is a consensus amongst astrophysicists that the solar system is a heliocentric rather than geocentric model. The science wasn't based on the consensus, the consensus was derived from the science.

Without context, you cite that the US produces 20% of the CO2, but is only 4% of the population.

I actually didn't cite anything of the sort.

You would punish the US by insisting that our carbon debt be reduced for individual americans who PRODUCE this surplus that allows us to save others, without any other consideration.

I can only assume you mean the rhetorical "you". I haven't said anything of the sort……….again.

And that gets back to the problem with GW to me. It is more complex than "industry is bad", but the solution is no more complex than "US must sacrifice".

Every developed country was asked to support the Kyoto Accord. You make it sound like this only affects the US.

Thus, if the solution said "world wide, everyone" then it would be a possible science based thought. But the politics are that the US sacrifice while the other 90% of the world "catch up".

Again with the parochial nonsense. Canada, on a per capita basis, is more wasteful than the US. That is understandable. We have a smaller population spread across a larger country and we have a more hostile climate to deal with. Our government also didn't sign the Kyoto Accord.

As to the biology, I believe it was Pasteur who proved that spontaneous generation was bogus.

Ralph