Via Big City Lib, I find this, from Tim Ball and Tom Harris:
Like all philosophies that come to dominate society, climate hysteria is part of an evolution of ideas and needs an historical context. The current western view of the World essentially evolved from the Darwinian view. Even though it is still just a theory and not a law 148 years after it was first proposed, Darwinian evolution is the only view allowed in schools. Why? Such censorship suggests fear of other ideas, a measure of indefensibility.
Looks like he's joining with Ross McKitrick and Roy Spencer.
I guess it wouldn't really take too long to give an "equal opportunity" to ID in a biology class room. Show a slide that represents some complex biological system that at present is not fully understood in terms of evolutionary theory and then say "Darn, this is really complicated. I don't see how this could have happened naturally so it must be 'designed'."
Of course you'd have to throw in the disclaimer "Oh, by the way, everthing that is explained well by evolutionary theory used to fall into this same category."
End of lesson.
Of course as a Pastafarian I would insist that the list of possible "designers" include the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Clearly the universe shows the touch of his noodley appendage.
I HOPE SHE MADE LOTSA SPAGHETTI!
(sorry, YouTube Poop has warped my brain.)
Me, I don't like that much carbs.
THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER! Heh heh. Heh heh. It's flying... it's a monster... and it's SPAGHETTI! Heh heh. Heh heh. Get it? "The Flying Spaghetti Monster." Get it? It's like God, only it's a Flying Spaghetti Monster, because both are equally plausible to a, um, trained, scientific... and it's SPAGHETTI!!! Get it?
The FSM is equally plausible to which God?
Humanity seems to have a bunch of them.
Were you referring to any particular God in your brilliant post?
Sorry Bart, but the joke is on you. Your deity is the one with the centuries of written comedy material. The FSM is a pale parody of the hysterical original.
Laser Potato, did you metion poop? I think Bart's pal Yaweh issued a warning involving that substance.
"If you do not listen, and if you do not take it to heart to give honor to my name," says the lord of hosts, "then I ... will spread dung upon your faces, even the dung of your feasts."
- Malachi 2:1-3
So I guess we had better honor the name of Bart's deity or he will give us the dreaded "poop face".
You can't make this stuff up.
When I see a comment that seems a tad... hysterical, I go to their web page, if available. "Born again Christian". 'splains everything.
Naw. I was referring to the phenomenon of YouTube Poop, which is taking clips from cartoons (and other things) and splicing them together for a comedic effect.
An FSM evangelist recently explained to me that in Pastafarian heaven there are beer volcanoes and a stripper factory. I'm no longer atheist, and support Tim, Tom, Ross and Roy completely on this one.
Nothing cracks actual scientists up more than crackpots who are so ignorant of real science that they actually believe that there is some level of proof at which a theory gets "promoted" to a Law.
Of course, in reality, "Law" does not denote a higher order of belief at all. We still refer to Newton's "Laws" of Motion, even though they have been shown to be incorrect, and have been replaced by Einstein's Theory of Relativity.
Basically, a "Law" is just a scientific "rule of thumb" --a theory or approximation that is simply stated and useful in a large number of contexts--even if it is not perfectly correct. No matter how much evidence we find that they are correct, Einstein's equations of motion will never be called a "Law," because they are too complicated--they include velocity dependent terms that are largely unnecessary in most circumstances.
And evolution is about as messy and complicated a theory as you can imagine (like most of biology--which is why you mainly find "Laws" in chemistry and physics, rather than biology).
trrll:
I have long thought that Mendel's Laws would have been more appropriately called Mendel's Postulates.
Nexus6, is Pastafarianism a puritanical religion? Beer volcanoes and stripper factories? Seems a little lame.
I am intrigued by this logic:
My school days are becoming a dim memory, but I don't recall being taught any National Socialist Economic theory when I was "studying". Does this mean that our school system is scared of National Socialist Economic ideas, because their own are indefensible? Or did I miss something in the application of this logic?
"The current western view of the World essentially evolved from the Darwinian view."
I coulda' swore that Plato, Aristotle, and Socrates had something to with the formative days of real Western Civilization. Maybe Ball didn't take that course.
Or maybe they aren't exactly "current."
Is it possible that this is an attempt to further politicize a scientific issue (AGW, not the policy to deal with it) by tying it to another heavily politicized scientific issue (organic evolution)? If I understand them correctly (a big 'if'), their goal is not to win a rhetorical argument about the evidence supporting scientific theories; their goal is to obfuscate, confuse, and prevent thoughtful argument by appealing to emotions and the 'us versus them' attitudes that pervade American public discourse.
"The FSM is equally plausible to which God?
Humanity seems to have a bunch of them.
Were you referring to any particular God in your brilliant post?"
Dimly remembered quote:
"I submit to you, sir, that we are both atheists; I merely disbelieve in one more God than you do"
and of course, the classic:
"We are all actually agnostic; some of us just refuse to admit it"
z,
"One less god than you do" is a cute slogan, but it pretty much misses the point. As a Christian I have more in common with a polytheist Hindu or Wiccan than either of us do with you. The difference between believing in one model of the supernatural and another is as nothing compared to the difference between believing there's a supernatural and believing there's no supernatural at all.
"As a Christian I have more in common with a polytheist Hindu or Wiccan than either of us do with you. The difference between believing in one model of the supernatural and another is as nothing compared to the difference between believing there's a supernatural and believing there's no supernatural at all."
random thoughts, not intended to be contentious:
what about the comparison between belief in the supernatural, and belief in something like quantum mechanics, which is more intrinsically unbelievable than any supernatural theories? and once one accepts that physics now tells us that our "natural" view of the universe is such a tiny view of some sort of vastly different "reality", is that a far jump from the most abstruse religious beliefs in hidden realms and cabalistic mysterious spheres of creation? was the now ridiculed question of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin that intrinsically different in its time than current research into ultimate deconstruction like the superconducting supercollider?
i do see monotheism as substantially different from pantheism, though, in that it involves a unifying theory of the universe. it's easy to see a separate spirit for each object/entity, but it's something of a leap to see that they may be interconnected behind the scenes, whether it's monotheistic God or the varied oddities of quantum physics that suggest interactions between things that don't have connections via classical newtonian physics.
as for religious creationism vs big bang....
Natural? Supernatural?
Well, in that case we propose that... [the universe was in fact created by a non-supernatural intelligent being](http://editthis.info/honest_honesty/Neo-TeX_Party)! No doubt this theory isn't any more testable than good old Christian ID, but of course anything that's labeled "natural" as opposed to "supernatural" automatically becomes more "scientific"! :)
Oh, and there are pictures of totally hot chicks on the linked page, so our theory is obviously correct. :-B
I wonder why it happens. Is it "People who agree with me are reasonable. Some of them seem to be creationists. Creationism must be underrated!"
Or is it more like AGW denial being a big sign saying "OPINIONS FOR SALE, CHEAP!!!", so that eventually a couple of sponsors turn up suggesting that you defend certain neglected viewpoints in the marketplace of ideas?
Is this some sort of discrimination post?
I once led a topic at "Polittalk.ch". What was the outcome of the theory of evolution in terms of scientific nature? Evolution theory remains a theory that can neither be refuted nor given evidence by experimental, scientific approach, while evolution itself is a fact. I am waiting for a month now for a new commenter that will prove an experiemental, scientific approach of the theory of evolution.
In a similar way as the theory of evolution is regarded as "settled", the core issue of AGW science is regarded as settled in mainstream science (Oreskes 2007). The evolution theory is about humans modelling the past. Global warming projection, such as 2 - 4.5°C warming (AR4) for 2*CO2, is about modelling the future although even the present (carbon cycle, etc. etc.) is not yet fully understood.
Please do not mock anybody regardless of his/her religious convictions who challenges this modelling as long as he/she uses scientific reasoning.
climatepatrol posts:
[[Evolution theory remains a theory that can neither be refuted nor given evidence by experimental, scientific approach, while evolution itself is a fact. I am waiting for a month now for a new commenter that will prove an experiemental, scientific approach of the theory of evolution. ]]
Well, what makes a theory scientific is that it depends on empirical data, on observations, whether of nature or in a laboratory. The primary empirical evidence of evolution is, of course, the fossil record, though there is much also from biochemistry, field observations of various life-forms, genetic studies, etc.
Another feature of a good scientific theory is that it should make testable predictions. Evolutionary biologists have used the theory to make successful predictions of what certain extinct life-forms were like. For example:
1. A couple of biologists predicted that the common ancestor of ants and wasps would have certain features. They found such a creature, dated to the right time, preserved in amber in 1967.
2. Several biologists predicted that transitional forms had to exist between whales and their land-dwelling ancestors, and a whole host of such fossils were found in the 1980s (Basilosaurus, Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, etc.)
3. Biologists predicted that if antibiotics (and pesticides) were overused, bacteria (and mosquitoes) would arise that were immune to the poisons. Drug-resistant microbes and DDT-resistant mosquitoes are major world problems right now.
[[In a similar way as the theory of evolution is regarded as "settled", the core issue of AGW science is regarded as settled in mainstream science (Oreskes 2007). The evolution theory is about humans modelling the past. Global warming projection, such as 2 - 4.5°C warming (AR4) for 2*CO2, is about modelling the future although even the present (carbon cycle, etc. etc.) is not yet fully understood. ]]
Well, it's a prediction from certain empirical facts about radiation physics. All else being equal, if you put more greenhouse gases in a planet's atmosphere, the surface temperature must go up. There's no way around that.
[[Please do not mock anybody regardless of his/her religious convictions who challenges this modelling as long as he/she uses scientific reasoning.]]
No problem. I'm a born-again Christian myself. :)
I know, Bro Barton:-). And I like your website. As a christian, I would change the content of my blog if the evidence changes or my understanding of it: I am more on the creationist side...but this is another topic. Topic related and seemingly the issue of Tim Ball is (apart from the far to wooden interpretation of "Bishop Ussher's biblically-based calculation of" - the earth's birtday), that there are always surprises. Things can happen quickly, also in climate science. Change is normal, etc. (ouch - I feel like a heretic to say that here). Even in geological terms: For the creationsist, similar patterns as the Grand Canyon can be found as a new canyon that formed during the eruption of Mount St. Helens.
Re the physics of the radiation budget, I am contineously learning from physicists, meteorologists, discussion forums, which includes your name:-). Well, and you may have noticed that I am asking questions where I think there are still weak spots - namely in the science of radiation budget, especially ground radiation, water vapor feedback, cloud parametrisation, the importance of short-term cycles such as the (negative) feedback of heat induced precipitable moisture. Okay, thanks. See you now and then.
Proof of intelligent design, and even more, charitable design:
Google works for both those who can and cannot spell. Get it approximately right and they'll still find it for you.
It's a caring universe. Make use of it. Look things up.
the importance of short-term cycles such as the (negative) feedback of heat induced precipitable moisture.
IR iris didn't make it thru peer review. Anyone using that tout should be ignored.
Best,
D
This only shows how pig-ignorant and dishonest creationists are. The grand canyon has incised meanders and vertical cliff walls in tough rock. The "canyons" at Mt St Helens are straight with v-shaped walls cut into soft volcanic ash. The two are nothing alike geologically, but the lying creationists don't actually look at the evidence and just make this crap up.
Lying scumbags for jesus
See here at Talkorigins.org
Just for the records for those with an open mind. See how quickly a canyon with vertical walls can be built: http://www.glaciallakemissoula.org/
@ D
Since you mention Iris. Your above statement is not correct:
Another very recent peer-reviewed paper strengthens this hypothesis of such a thermostat:
Cloud and radiation budget changes associated with tropical intraseasonal oscillationsRoy W. Spencer et al. 2007
The Spencer paper thus states in the introduction that the precipitation systems produce clouds that both warm the atmosphere through longwave "greenhouse" warming, and cool the surface through shortwave (solar) shading and that "any imbalance between these two large terms could significantly feed back on global warming [also Chou and Lindzen, 2002; Soden and Held, 2006]". For example, page 2 of the study describes temperature/cloud interactions during different (normal/above normal) tropical rainfalls and discovered an important aspect which is not covered in the above John and Soden paper (p. 3):
The decrease in ice cloud coverage is conceptually consistent with the "infrared iris" hypothesized by Lindzen et al. [2001], who proposed that tropical cirroform cloud coverage might open and close, like the iris of an eye, in response to anomalously warm or cool conditions providing a negative radiative feedback on temperature change. We caution, though, that the ice cloud reduction with tropospheric warming reported here is on a time scale of weeks; it is not obvious whether similar behavior would occur on the longer time scales associated with global warming."
Ah the Gish Gallop. When someone points out the facts, change the subject. The Channeled Scablands don't look like the Grand Canyon either, nor do they look like Mt St Helens.
From Talk Origins again:
A real open-minded person will deal with the evidence. Not ignore it and lie like the creationists do.
Of course you don't get vertical walls in deep vulcanic ash, dude! If you trust your source and I trust mine. So let's agree to disagree and not call each other liar. Do you read me? Have you ever been to the Channeled Scablands. There is a picture right in front of me. And it makes pretty much sense. Never mind. I'll just right it for the open minds.
The differences between the GC and Mt St Helens are obvious, but creationists simply ignore the facts which is neither honest or open minded. Since the same facts have been pointed out over and over to the creationists, it's obvious they prefer to be dishonest.
"Evolution theory remains a theory that can neither be refuted nor given evidence by experimental, scientific approach"
Oh, so Mr. climatepatrol completely, 100%, dismisses evolution theory as being unscientific. And then turns around and accuses other people of being closed-minded.
The irony.
@Zarquon
Sure. The more stable the material is, the more you get vertical slopes. I see new vertical slopes in Switzerland after one single storm.
@bi
I hope you don't twist the meaning of entire scientific papers the way you twist this one simple sentence of mine. You may also read again the entire topic related context, IF you are interested.
"Evolution theory remains a theory that can neither be refuted nor given evidence by experimental, scientific approach" -- climatepatrol
"I hope you don't twist the meaning of entire scientific papers the way you twist this one simple sentence of mine. You may also read again the entire topic related context" -- climatepatrol
I just did. And I still see you dismissing evolution theory 100% with a sweeping wave of the hand. And then accusing _others_ of being closed-minded.
Now here's a fun question to think about: Is global warming 'skepticism', as practised by the current breed of 'skeptics', a falsifiable 'theory'? Let's see:
If climate models are inaccurate, then AGW is obviously wrong! If climate models are accurate, then the climate models were rigged in the first place! That's some 'falsifiability'.
If the majority of scientists do not say that AGW is real, then AGW is obviously wrong! If the majority of scientists _do_ say that AGW is real, then obviously they're part of the Great Inquisition of the Evil Scientific Establishment, which means they're obviously wrong! I win again! Yet more 'falsifiability'.
If a particular scientist says that AGW is not real, then the particular scientist is obviously right! If a particular scientist says that AGW _is_ real, then obviously the particular scientist has been threatened by the Great Inquisition of the Evil Scientific Establishment! You can just _feel_ the 'falsifiability' of global warming 'skepticism' already.
(Then again, AGW 'skepticism' was never 'skeptical' to begin with.)
"Round up the posse lads, we've got a real live creationist here"
Anyone mind if I take this off topic into Creationism land? It's a while since I've met one running free.
Naomi Oreskes. Professor of History and Science Studies at the University of California, San Diego, CA
(American Meteorological Society's Environmental Science Seminar Series "The Science of Global Warming: How do We Know We're Not Wrong? "How can the public be assured that the scientific consensus on global warming and its causation is not wrong, given previous concerns regarding global cooling and theories such as continental drift? Are there tests of such scientific assertions and theories that can serve to reassure our confidence in their correctness? Tuesday, June 22, 2007
http://www.ametsoc.org/atmospolicy/documents/Chapter4.pdf
I agree with Professor Naomi Oreskes. The question is tempo and mode. What political conclusions we draw from that, that's again a totally different issue.
Peace:-)
climatepatrol:
Stop pretending. If you agree that AGW has very definitely happened in the past, then why's your blog touting another new "report" that claims that global warming has "stopped" (which is, you know, a past tense word)?
Just another usual crapmill denialist trying to portray himself as being in the middle. This "_un_-denialism" trick is getting old, you know.
I look forwards to climatepatrol changing his views on evolution after being shown to be wrong by the various posters on this thread.
It appears as though his blog posts are a parade of standard denialist nonsense.
Looks like another "don't feed the troll" moment has arrived.