Lysenkoism is used colloquially to describe the manipulation or distortion of the scientific process as a way to reach a predetermined conclusion as dictated by an ideological bias, often related to social or political objectives. [Wikipedia]

Lysenkoism was a fallacious genetic theory approved by Stalin and the Central Committee and the Soviet Lenin All-Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences. Dissenting voices were silenced and Soviet agriculture was devastated by the faithful.

Global warming ... today's Lysenkoism, brought to you by political elites who silence dissenting scientific voices. Just as Lysenkoism destroyed Soviet agriculture so will the politically driven Global Warming faithful destroy our industry unless their war on productivity and material progress is engaged and stopped.

::ignoring::

If one only looks at the data from the last 800 years, then one might conclude that the rise in temperature since the industrial revolution might have something to do with human activity on the planet. But when one goes further back in time one quickly realizes that we probably have little impact on global temperatures. Greenland, after all, wasn't always covered with a sheet of ice, hence the name GREEN-land. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09/hockey-stick-observed-in-noaa-ice-core-data/

Wow. Just... Wow. You really have NO idea how real science actually works, do you? If you did, that post would not have left your brain, but would have even quelled by you understanding of peer review.

There is no "elite club" of scientists. There are just individuals. That's the sort of paranoid, anti-intellectual belief that got hundreds of educated people rounded up and thrown into labor camps -- or worse -- in a certain global conflict. You should know better than to use the same brush to attempt force reality into a portrait that matches your vision.

I'm completely appalled.

Having been around both Masters and PhD level scientific research, university institutions and their elite are certainly some of the worst when it comes to playing "politics" to further ones own agenda. Yes, even peer review is not immune to this because it's not just one person but the head of departments playing the "game".

Actually, as a research scientist, I have a very good idea of how science works. In a lot of cases the work is catered to get the results one wants. My name is on several patents because another patent claimed that a product could not be made by a particular method.

This is actually quite true.

Scott, you should note that Peter's post was a reply to 2x6.

Ahh, didn't catch that... sorry Peter.

No disrespect intended, but as a research scientist, you could have found a better way to make your argument than to quote such a biased source as the world renowned blogger and pseudo scientist, Anthony Watts. The man has far too much invested in maintaining his blog readership on the global warming issue.

Agreed. But it was probably better than linking the raw data tables from NOAA and JPL from which the charts in the blog were created.

Hey Mark,

I think i should get some credit here..... I didn't start this one...

Environmental extremists, anti-fossil fuel fanatics and their political allies have foisted a fraudulent, one-sided, anti-scientific theory of global warming caused by human activities.

These politically driven extremists and their well meaning followers have ignored natural warming cycles and suppressed evidence which contradicts their theories.

The scientists in the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (CRU) located in the UK, in communication with their fellow true believers in major academic institutions in the US were caught engaging in a collossal scientific fraud and data manipulation by scientists concerning the Global Warming catachism.

Is it not true that these true believers, these Lysenkoists of the environment have engaged in vicious personal attacks on the credibility of any scientist daring to contradict them. This scientific politically driven elite has created a climate of fear suppressing the opinions of scientists who disagree with the theory.

A similar reaction can be seen in this thread.

Al Gore created the internet.

Aye, Sir Quack, that he did, sir, that he did. The interweb.

Scott, have you seen this?

I assure you, Peter and I both know the ...nature of research scientists...

Yes, Ken.C, but is the warming trend the result of human activities or naturally caused?

If the warming trend is due to natural causes, why should we deindustrialize, wreck the economies of the industrialized west, and threaten a population collapse?

I think that's fairly obvious, but so do you, so what's the point in arguing over it? Why even bring this up on an audio forum?

This is the water cooler.

Oh, I get it, there's too much activity on this site.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Keep up the good work. We still have some activity on this forum.

You are correct, I mean, why would anyone in their right mind disagree with you and Peter? There's no need for any posts which express opinions you disagree with, right?

So it was with Trofim Lysenko.

And you love to argue and get people mad at each other. 'Cause hey, it's good for a laugh. Or we could go back to talking about cars and being friends. I like that better.

HEY! How's that VP180?? (Desperate de-rail attempt)

I don't know why people should get angry about discussing this issue. I think it makes my point about how rational discussion of this issue is discouraged. You either accept the 'truth' of human caused global warming, or you're a troublemaker.

Mr. Spoiler, the VP180 is scheduled to arrive on Tuesday. I am looking forward to lugging it upstairs and setting it up. I will report back!

I suppose all those drivers and the coal fired power plants which provide the electricity for our audio systems will only add to you know what. Turn down the volume!

What I see in global warming is a trillion dollar industry. Professors, scientists, politicians, students see it no differently.

Follow the money, follow the money.

http://mullerandassociates.com/

Grants galore, consultant feeding frenzy. I think you found the bread crumb trail Mr. BlueJays.

2x6spds, your time is up now now buddy...


I tried the "its the Water cooler" argument also....

On a side note, Volcanos spew as much carbon dioxide and other toxins into the atmosphere in seconds, as it take humans to add in years.. I don't know the specifics, but its a LOT... Granted we don't have volcano's going off on a daily basis, but.. This goes to the point..


Ok, i'm leaving this one alone.. I didn't have much luck last time...

No kidding. Look under "OUR TEAM". Certainly no conflict of interest going on. Holy cow!

Just what you'd expect someone from the elite club of scientists to say

(sorry, I couldn't resist)

They're hiding something!!!

I just exhaled ... uh oh!! CO2, greenhouse gas, we're all emitters!! Think maybe the political and scientific elites think there are too many people on this globe and that we're the problem?

Maybe, they have in mind a human population number better suited to maintain an ecological balance than 7 billion.

Maybe more like 2 billion. So, what about the 5 billion too many?

I don't think the political or scientific elites have in mind that they will have to take a number.

You toss labels about to bait the people you know disagree with you. I took your bait and unfortunately reacted strongly. Now I remember that you are intellectually rigid: you have zero interest in learning, only to teach your view of the truth. We've seen it time and again. I'll avoid further "discussions" with you.

Oh. Ouch.

I hope I did not engage in any personal attacks against anyone and I sure hope I didn't insult anyone or call them names. I personally don't believe I am intellectually rigid and I sure don't believe I have no interest in learning.

Actually, I reviewed my posts and I think they're kind of intellectually provocative and playful, but your opinion obviously differs.

I don't know why it is that some people just cannot argue in a rational or civil manner, but rather submit their opinions as settled fact, their theories as the only ones worthy of credit, and regard opposing arguments as personal attacks or so dumb as to be unworthy of response.

What's gone wrong with our educational system?

I'm not an expert in the field of climate change. In matters beyond my field of expertise I defer to those who have devoted their education to the study of the field.

"There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities." - http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/007.htm

"(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers." - http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf+html

The concept that the world-wide scientific community is one giant conspiracy to push the idea of climate change is, frankly, silly. The best fitting theory for climate change by those who research the issue is that it's been largely human caused. If convincing data arises that indicates otherwise, then our interperetations will change (that's how science works). However, that isn't the case with our current understanding.

Hello GS

Climategate

Nicely put, GuitarSteve. I agree with you on all counts.

I see that you haven't read the result of the so-called "climategate":

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/61233/uk-climategate-inquiry-largely-clears.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/08/science/earth/08climate.html?_r=1

http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/04/oxburgh-report-clears-controvers.html

http://views.washingtonpost.com/climate-...nnsylvania.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-10899538

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2011/02/24/science-climategate-noaa.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-22...ng-inquiry.html

Effectively, eight seperate committees (House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (UK), Independent Climate Change Review (UK), International Science Assessment Panel (UK), Pennsylvania State University, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Commerce (US), and the National Science Foundation (US)) assigned to investigate the issue determined that there was no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.

Again, if evidence is advanced that stands up to scrutiny which shows climate change doesn't exist or is not man made then our current understanding will change based on the new facts. That just hasn't happened yet.

Our earth's climate changes are a naturally occurring phenomena. Climate is constantly evolving as it has over history & will continue in the future. It would not be surprising that there will be hundreds of feet of ice on top of my home location like there was in the recent past (in geological time). It will happen again.

The earth is going to do what the earth wants to do & we have very little influence on that. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't strive to do things in a clean, efficient manner - within reason. The problem is, this stuff becomes a religion with some folks where common sense does not enter the discussion.

The biggest problem that I see is the continuing human population explosion. Until that is somehow addressed, there can be no meaningful measures that can be implemented. World religions that want more & more followers in their 'flock' will never support such a notion.

So eventually, as we increasingly over exploit our resources due to more & more humans appearing on this planet, humankind is probably doomed long before our sun blows up. I'm glad & fortunate that I'm living when I am. And no, I'm not coming back as someone else or some other being...

TAM

Well said exlabdriver!

Upon what research are you basing your claims exlabdriver?

My thoughts exactly. One can say that man could not have any impact on climate change, but it's not a claim one can make based on evidence.

If most of the global warming is thought to be due to carbon dioxide emissions, then any effect man had prior to the industrial revolution would be negligible. I do not believe that one can say the same thing about modern man. Admittedly, by the time the real evidence comes in, then I suspect it'll be too late to do much about it.

Polar Bears in Fredricksburg!

Temperature history of Greenland.

I've been watching this stuff with great interest from all sides for a couple of decades. With all of the conflicting, questionable information & political ideology coming from all sides, I've become so cynical that I hardly believe anything from any of the camps anymore - including scientists. I'm just using my own twisted logic & what I think is solid common sense (an attribute that is often not appreciated anymore & is now quite uncommon).

The fact is that climate change is normal & will continue to be so. I believe that human activity has had little impact on what is happening, although over time, detrimental effects may become a factor if we keep reproducing in the way that we are.

Most volcanic eruptions can easily overwhelm all the perceived good that all of the global green initiatives to date have accomplished. That is not to say that green initiatives aren't laudable, because they can be, as long as they are cost effective & within reason; however, spending close to $1 Million last year in my small town to create some bicycle lanes to cater to a miniscule number of local cyclists (several are on town council who seem to carry the day in these matters) is bloody ridiculous. In my travels around here, I rarely see any bicycles using them although scores of vehicles regularly use these shared routes. I suggest that this particular green initiative is a fine example of not being cost effective nor reasonable - and we wonder why most of our governments are financially broke...

TAM

This conversation reminds me of the way we handle nuclear disasters.

"Whats that you say? There's a problem with the core? Nah, can't be, bypass all the safetys. Full steam ahead ..."

The sky is falling.

I don't know if the sky is falling; however, the 'experts' tell us that sea levels will be rising & I live right across the street from the ocean - about 20' above high tide.

I believe them, but eventually the levels will fall again - but thankfully I won't be here for any of it...

TAM

2 miles from the Pacific, 760' above sea level. I am closer to the sky, or vice versa.

Nope. Collective human stupidity is rising. Results are the same, so watch your head...

I'm trying but it gives me a headache!

When I was a kid, global cooling was the issue. A new ice age was coming. I think they wanted to sell magazines.

Global warming is more of the same. People trying to make profit through higher ratings, selling carbon credits, obtaining research grants, whatever.

Pollution is horrible. I despise it. We have many real environmental issues address. But global warming is a scam perpetrated by con artists.

Yup, it's interesting how 'Global Warming' morphed into 'Climate Change' several years ago when the 'evidence' wasn't really apparent & it couldn't be sold anymore under that banner...

TAM

What an interesting conversation.

I am for clean air and clean water as well XLD. The Central Valley of California, one of the most productive agricultural areas in the world is being turned into a dust bowl because of EPA restrictions. The designation of the Delta Smelt as an endangered species has destroyed Central Valley agriculture.

The Keystone Pipeline, which would bring Canadian oil to our refineries in the Gulf Coast area, stalled by Obama's radical EPA. The Chinese will finance a pipeline to the Pacific.

The United States sits on the greatest coal reserves in the world. The EPA has issued new proposed rules on carbon emissions that will help Obama keep one campaign promise: Builders of new coal fired power plants won’t be prevented from building coal-fired power plants, they’ll just go bankrupt if they try.

The US has an abundance of natural gas but EPA regulations will disable the exploitation of this fabulous resource.

It is not possible to build a refinery because of EPA regulations.

Carbon credits would have destroyed our energy sector in one stroke and resulted in a huge transfer of wealth from the US and the advanced industrial sector to sh!t holes like Northern Sudan and Somalia.

Global warming and radical environmental agenda of deconstructing our industrial and energy capacity work together to impoverish our society in the name of environmentalism.

Wait a minute. Maybe the sky is falling.

I'm not read up on any of this stuff, so ignore this whole post.

I have a hard time believing there's a huge conspiracy among scientists to make mankind accountable for something that isn't our fault. On the other hand, I agree to a point with people who argue that the planet is going to cycle through some extreme conditions on its own. The dinosaurs weren't polluting the planet, as far as I know, and it didn't save them. Like I said, I'm not current, but when I've heard people talk about the state of the environment based on man's influence, it seems we're at the point of inevitability. Even if we stopped all carbon emissions, would it be enough? I believe in being thoughtful, but it's not realistic to expect people to give up the comforts they've grown accustomed to.

Even if the whole thing is a scam, I think it DOES give us the opportunity to do things better, and the US needs something new to excel at and export, so I'm all for getting what we can out of it. Fossil fuels aren't going to last forever, and it sure would be nice if we could make ourselves independent in that regard. We'll get ourselves into fewer wars that way, right?

In any case, I think it's a stretch to think that billions of humans have zero effect on the environment. Would the Earth still do something major to reduce our population at some point? Without a doubt. To ignore any impact we may be having is like saying, "Well, we're going to die at some point, anyway, so we may as well commit suicide."

Tonight I watched a 2-hour program on The History Channel called 'Titanoboa'. In an open pit coal mine in Columbia, scientists recently found fossilized remains of a fearsome, gigantic boa-type of snake that was about 48' long with an estimated weight of 2500 lbs. Also found there were the remains of huge crocs, turtles & plants from 60 million years ago that all dwarf anything today.

Their hypothesis is that the only way that these creatures & plants could have grown that large is due to a far warmer climate at that time than we have presently - probably at least an average of 5 degrees C warmer globally than now. Interestingly, there were no smokestacks back then.

In the past our climate has been both much warmer & far colder than now. Despite humankind's activities on this rock, our climate will continue to fluctuate naturally over the eons until the eventual demise of our sun...

TAM

Concerning Greenland and Iceland, I heard that it was named this way by Vikings to protect Iceland from outsiders. Make people think it was covered in ice and divert them to Greenland instead.

Greenland was so named in order to bring more people to that island.
it's also true that at the time the climate was a few degrees warmer there than it was in the next few centuries, and farming benefited from it.

A simple "I made it all up" would suffice.

Belief that scientists around the world are part of some global conspiracy regarding climate change shows very poor understanding of the fundamental tenants of science, and the way that it is practiced. When coupled with the fact that you can't bring anything to the discussion other than personal opinion gleaned from a few sensational news headlines indicates either a willful rejection of reason (embracing faith over data), or an inability to understand the information that is readily available . . . either way rational debate has clearly come to a close.

I saw that same documentary, very interesting and I must admit their hypothesis about climate in relation to the enormous size of these prehistoric, especially cold-blooded animals, is quite intriguing and makes a lot of sense even in relation to the size of certain animals today and where they inhabit.

I would think the question that has to be asked is how long did it take for those animals to grow that large in that significantly warmer climate? The Burmese pythons that are not supposed to be in the Florida everglades, according to scientists, are already noticeably larger than when they were first found in that environment and that wasn't that long ago.

Guitar:

I have never accused scientists of banding together & being part of a global conspiracy.

From what I've seen, there are a number of data packs that are being used to prove each camp's point of view. One camp says that we've been continually warming, the other says that we've actually cooled slightly over the past 10 years. Who does one believe - that stalwart organization, the UN IPCC? So don't tell us to blindly believe 'The Official Data' as it is deemed to be quite questionable by many learned folks as is the computer modelling that is being used to predict this stuff.

The Gores & Suzukis of this world demand that we believe that only their data is correct & that their predictions & assumptions are infallible so all debate must cease - they won't even answer contrary questions on the matter. That's not how proper science is supposed to work. There are dissenting points of view that need to be heard, investigated & debated as well.

That's all that we are doing here.

BTW, I read in the paper yesterday that the Capital Region around Victoria, BC is looking into spending up to $220 Million on bike lanes over the next while - all when we're so far in debt that we'll probably never get out. Is this a reasonable green expenditure? It sure is not to me...

TAM

I think I have a pretty good grasp of both the tenets and the tenants of science.

The tenets should be practiced in such a way that the tenants have no vested interest in the results. Unfortunately, ongoing funding for research in climate change is contingent upon proof of not only climate change, but also that the change is bad and that modifying human behavior can make it less bad. Jobs are at stake. Sweeping that little detail under the rug completely ignores the real economic needs of the scientific community and also basic human nature.

I know a few scientists. They are people, too.

Oh, and Gaia theorist James Lovelock gets less hysterical.



Good article.

You know, "balance" is a good thing, and let's not have The Perfect be the enemy of The Good, and all that.



Well, since you put it that way, I guess you're right.

Isn't it interesting that those who tolerate no deviation from the human driven global warming 'truth' end up calling for an end to the discussion contesting the revelation even though that discussion has barely commenced.

In addition to J.B.'s credible statements above ref Greenland, the following is taken from Wikipedia if you choose to believe it:

"What is verifiable is that the ice cores indicate Greenland has experienced dramatic temperature shifts many times over the past 100,000 years".

Interesting, since there was not much human activity for most of the 100,000 years that were studied. Kinda makes sense to me...

TAM

TAM, you keep hammering the fact that Earth's climate has changed over time. I do not think that anybody is arguing with you on that fact. I know that I am not. You don't have to hammer that nail any longer. We get it.

That said, there is the separate question of whether man can have an impact on climate. This impact would superimpose itself on any natural climate change.

Yup, this is the most annoying & frustrating characteristic of this religion...

TAM

[img:center][/img]

China's industrialization is unfettered by environmental concerns. That is because the Chinese Communist system regards 'Capitalism' as a criminal enterprise which crushes the individual and the environment. Red China's pragmatic experiment with 'capitalism' should have been expected to be an evil parody of the system.

Our industrial facility is essentially clean, what we need are policies which are responsible.

I'm for reasonable regulations to protect clean air and water, but like someone said, let not the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Of course, to be fair, Chinese Communists have no problem with crushing the individual.

By the way, Peter, what's wrong with your pussy?

From Medic: "That said, there is the separate question of whether man can have an impact on climate. This impact would superimpose itself on any natural climate change."

With unfettered human population growth, I'm sure that mankind will have an increasing role in adversely affecting the world's climate; however, what annoys many people like me is how mankind's unproven, supposedly detrimental activities have been presented by the 'gurus' - mostly in an irresponsible & alarmist manner over the past decade.

The scam of international wealth redistribution programs through Carbon Taxes, Credits, Offsets, or whatever, that have been proposed by these folks certainly isn't the answer either. Sadly, the potential for these funds going to nefarious entities is all too real. After all, Mr Mugabe, an avid environmentalist (ha!), was at the Copenhagen conference with his hand out hoping for a windfall of green dollars to come flowing his way. Thankfully he never received any from our government as we didn't sign on to that nonsense...

TAM

Sure, there are always extremists and hyperpartisans, even if they would be so blind as to deny it themselves. But just because someone can be overzealous, overstate something, or even exaggerate something does not automatically mean that they are all wrong and that we should summarily dismiss their concerns. They still could be 90% right. Or half right.

I don't have the answers on global warming. I wish I did. I wish I could rest assured that it is all nonsense, but there is enough of a consensus in the scientific community that greenhouse emissions are an issue of serious concern that I am, in fact, concerned. I'm not advocating a $200 million bike path, but I wouldn't mind seeing more people bike.

I, too, grow weary of people so entrenched on either side of an issue that, to me, is not clear-cut with an absolute truth. I'm thinking global warming, politics, religion, and the merits of tube amps vs solid state amps. It's tough to talk when all that's being done is restating of dogma. It gets old and wears on my soul. I get enough soul-crushing material in my work day, and, I will admit, occasionally in my home life. I focus instead on the positives, which, luckily, outweigh the negatives at work, at home, and here on the boards.

Peace be with you. Good night.

Having a good sh*t filter is an essential life skill. Filter the alarmists on both sides and look at what is left.

There is plenty of direct evidence of how we have been affecting local climates for a very long time. It is not much of a leap to look at possible global consequences. Given the complexity of global climate, it is no surprise that


And if you listen to the more rational voices on the global warming side, they will agree with you. Carbon credits are a 'sound bite' solution. That does not invalidate the base research on global warming.

Pointing at the global warming crowd and claiming its all about the money seems a strange argument to me. There is exponentially more money being made pumping oil, digging coal and fracking shale. If small money is corrupting the soul of all science, it is surely exponentially corrupting the soul of all 'big energy'.

It is getting warmer alarmingly fast. As fast as the worst warming events in history like say, when volcanos were erupting faster than zits on a teenager's face. Sure, when volcanos erupt the spew a lot of stuff into the atmosphere. That could accelerate global warming. Problem is, there is no zitfest going on this time. Red herring. The same can be applied to most of the stuff coming from the anti global warming side.

After you filter all the sh*t from both sides, the best evidence still points to human induced warming.

Ya, I know 2x6, the sky is falling. Not really. I'm an optimistic guy. Even if the worst is true and we manage to kill ourselves off, the cockroaches and bacteria will manage just fine. They'll most likely be partying hearty long after we are gone as a species, whatever our final end.

The real question -- and I'm actually surprised nobody has brought this up -- is how the increase in average global temperature (regardless of its cause) will affect the sound coming from our speakers??

Does this mean we'll be listening to a lot more Ice-T?

fred:

Check out the historic volcanic activity at this site:

http://volcanic-eruptions.findthedata.org/

I found it to be quite interesting. The list includes 617 eruptions rated from 'non-explosive' to 'colossal' in our recent geological history. It seems to me that there is a continual 'zitfest' going on.

The scariest one for us in western North America, & perhaps even farther, is the sleeping giant, Yellowstone's Super Volcano, WY.

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/04/13/yellowstones-supervolcano-surprisingly-humongous/

It is surmised that it may blow its top again sometime; however, for much of North America, climate change will be the least of our worries...

TAM

I think I've already started to experience some of what is to come... at 95 deg F and 95% RH the bass seems to hit a little harder, you know, with the higher air density, and all

funny, but i always thought and felt that higher air temps mean lower air density...

open the fridge door, and the cold air drops down to your feet;
start the heater, and the warm air goes up towards the ceiling...

;-)

You're correct. PV=nRT, and all.

Increasing the humidity or temperature of the air makes it less dense. With air molecules packed less densely, they travel further before bumping into their neighbors as a sound wave propagates through the gas. This results in faster transmission of sound.

That sounds Scientific.

Run him outta town!

Hey man, I was only second author on that research paper. I'm not totally corrupt.

Yeah, but you must be funded by either the gubmint or BIG OIL, and therefore ... a WITCH!

Let's see if he floats on either warm or cold air!

Quick, to get the hot air, get 2x6 to blow into this hose!

My mom often told me that the air in my bedroom was so thick she could hang an axe in it.




(because of my gas)

Not if you're moving away from the source equidistant to the speed of the sound wave. HA!

See, science if corrupt .

a child takes Mom aside and says: "daddy is losing gas".

Not really. Here's some fun reading.
From what I can tell from surveying a few papers, it takes a whole lot of large events of a particular type to strongly influence climate. Even that is in question. Amusingly it seems that for those that think volcanoes have an effect on climate, it seems it is global cooling not warming. Guess its been a while since I did any reading on that topic.

Now, on with the witch burning...

Physics. It works Witches!

Yup, that was fun reading - not, ha!

From the minimal research that I did in the past day, I've come to the conclusion that, just like the present dissenting camps, there is often disagreement amongst even the finest experts on the effects of all these contributing factors as they relate to how our earth's climate operates & why & how it is altered over the long term.

It seems to me that nobody really knows for sure as it is just too big for us to fully comprehend at the present time. Perhaps with the inevitable increased sophistication of future technologies, we will eventually get a handle on this stuff. In the meantime, we have to keep a grip on those in charge & especially those with vested interests to hopefully ensure that they don't continually overreact & run amok. Despite what the alarmists preach, there is time to sort these matters out, if indeed they need sorting out.

I'm done. Thanks for the discussion...

TAM

Nice chatting with you TAM. I agree with your analysis.

I'm interested in getting a baseline on the scientific literacy of those participating in this thread. I unfortunately have to bring up a subject that is controversial, but really should not be, given the supporting evidence.

Evolution. Do you agree or disagree that it is currently the best explanation we have for how the current diversity of life on Planet Earth came to be?

Agree, whether or not there was divine involvement.

[quote=J. B. funny, but i always thought and felt that higher air temps mean lower air density...

open the fridge door, and the cold air drops down to your feet;
start the heater, and the warm air goes up towards the ceiling...

;-) [/quote]

For dry air this is true. Add a bunch of water molecules (humidity) and density increases. The higher the temperature the more water the air can hold hence the term Relative Humidity.

Agree.

Evolution: Don't believe in it. I believe that this rock we live on could be umpteen ages old, but I believe in the story of the literal 1 week of creation, whereas life and the ability to sustain life was added to this rock.

It could be that more than 1 generation of creations happened here which could account for why some really old stuff has been found. But, then again, how reliable is the carbon dating, and could something recently created show as being old using carbon dating?

I don't call this a closed-minded opinion, just a different opinion. It seems most scientifically based minds are more close-minded to the creationist views than vica-versa.

If you disagree are you scientifically illiterate?

Agree.



Technically yes, but nobody will call you that .

Someone please provide a explanation of the emergence of language which necessarily arises from the theory of evolution.

Very.


No.


That's because creationism is not science. There's no way to run an experiment or otherwise scientifically investigate creationist claims, so scientists cannot give a verdict on the truthiness ( ) of creationism.

Here's an overview.

Here's a relevant quote from the overview: The Broca's and Wernicke's areas of the primate brain also appear in the human brain, the first area being involved in many cognitive and perceptual tasks, the latter lending to language skills. The same circuits discussed in the primates' brain stem and limbic system control non-verbal sounds in humans (laughing, crying, etc.), which suggests that the human language center is a modification of neural circuits common to all primates. This modification and its skill for linguistic communication seem to be unique to humans, which implies that the language organ derived after the human lineage split from the primate (chimps and bonobos) lineage."

Peter just asked for an "agree" or "disagree". We've "discussed" this topic before and it unfortunately turns kinda nasty. It's civil now, but.

Here's some info about how carbon dating is based on assumptions, that may not be true.

Quote: "Although this technique looks good at first, carbon-14 dating rests on at least two simple assumptions. These are, obviously, the assumption that the amount of carbon 14 in the atmosphere has always been constant and that its rate of decay has always been constant. Neither of these assumptions is provable or reasonable."

For the trifecta.

Does Obama deserve to be re-elected?

As a preamble, I never watch the 'entertainment' drivel on mainstream TV such as 'Dancing with the Stars', 'Survivor', 'American Idol', modern sitcoms, etc, etc. Almost nightly I try immerse myself in fare from The Knowledge Network, PBS, National Geographic, Discovery, History Channel & various news outlets, etc. For example I watched with fascination 'Death of the Mars Rovers' last night on NG - a wonderful documentary chronicling the achievements of the outstanding Mars Rover program. Kudos to NASA for that one plus the present 'Curiosity' rover program.

So, while I'm not formally educated in science, I avidly follow scientific, historical & political matters. I believe that I'm fairly well informed - although others here may not agree, ha!!. Most people, I think, consider me to be rather boring because I am often on the outside of mainstream conversations with our friends because I'm totally ignorant on sports & what Britney Spears is wearing (or not wearing) these days. To me they & the vast majority of our North American culture are woefully intellectually shallow. The other day I heard on talk radio from south of the border that a survey found that only 3% of Americans were aware that Europe was in deep financial trouble. I think that says a lot & we're not much better up here.

Anyway, for me, evidence for evolution is quite compelling (much more so than for the causes for climate change). It has been an ongoing process for billions of years. The notion that a couple of thousand years ago some super entity somewhere created all that is around us plus the entire universe that is so massive that it is incomprehensible - in 1 week yet - just doesn't cut it with me...

TAM

CatBrat, your article comes from the web site of Creation Today. Here is their "About Us":

Creation Today (CT) is a leading Christian-apologetics ministry, defending the literal interpretation of the Genesis creation account from the theory of evolution (see our Statement of Faith).

So, they have an agenda to defend Biblical literalism from evolution. They have drawn their conclusion before they begin their work. They are trying to fit the facts to their theory (faith), rather than looking at the available data/current evidence and then coming up with a theory/conclusion to explain what has been observed, which is how modern science, when done properly, does things.

I am not saying that it is bad to have faith in a higher power. But I am saying that if you are going to go with a literal interpretation of the Bible as an unassailable beginning point of reference, then you are going to be useless as a scientist.

I suggest you read this link. It explains how other isotopes are more relevant for determining the age of fossils and the Earth.

I don't think anyone will convince another, one way or another. Discussions on faith/evolution will always end in a stalemate

Nobody wins, everyone's angry.

I'm calmer than you are.

I hear ya, Doctor Blue Horse. I used to have the goal of winning people over to my way of thinking, but I realized that that's a blueprint for frustration.

Now my goal is to engage in civil discussions that, by thoughtful exchange of ideas, are stimulating and enjoyable. The Axiom message boards (and PMs) are my go-to online resource for that. I have a few favorite blogs that I follow, and I check Facebook once in a while, but I only really engage in discussion here.

I'm familiar with Broca's organ and Wernicke's area, however, those morphological structures are not an explanation based on the theory of evolution for the emergence of language. Contrary to your post, primates do not possess Broca's organ, or any neural structure which if damaged degrades their linguistic ability.

Further, the mere fact that there are neural structures associated with language is not an explanation for how language ability emerged or operates in the human species.

I hope someone can please explain how the theory of evolution accounts for the emergence of language in the human species.

Respectfully, I don't think you can. Arm waiving, and this is something like that (analogical reasoning) is not sufficient.

I do not suggest by this question that the Eternal One endowed the human species with particular faculties, but rather that the theory of evolution, though powerful, is not a sufficient theory to explain the emergence of every human characteristic.

You're right, I readily admit that I am not a language theorist. I do not have the answers you seek. I was merely pointing you to a starting point for your search. In the wikipedia article that I referenced, there are several theories espoused, with the admission that the study of the evolution of language is made difficult by the fact that, in short, there are no language fossils.

I do not agree that the development of language suggests some other force besides evolution. Evolution has at its core the concept of survival of the fittest. Fitness is not just a physical quality of being stronger or faster. It has also a mental aspect of being smarter/sneakier/more creative. There is also a behavioral component, e.g. pack behavior, cooperation. The development of language would be a fantastic skill that would give advantage to the species that possessed it. So it seems to me that the development of language fits in just fine with evolutionary theory.

For me, anytime a scientist says millions or billions of years, it's because they can't show it happening in a reasonable time frame. Personally, I'm not a fan of taking sides at this point. I can see value in the concept of reason, and I can see value in the concept of God. Either way, we're still in the here and the now, and debating the origin of life, while occasionally an enjoyable exercise, isn't something that's going to to be figured out by any of us. Using science is like trying to prop yourself up with a crutch that never quite reaches the ground. There are always going to be more questions that follow whatever questions you answer. Faith is a crutch that will actually reach the ground, but only from your specific perspective. The others around you might still see a guy flailing around on the ground.

CV, I really this analogy and metaphor. It captures the differences between the two perspectives well. One of the comforts of faith or religion is that it can answer many difficult questions to the satisfaction of believers. Science, on the other hand, demands that you question your answers.

That crutch -- I prefer to view it as a tool, since the term "crutch" has a negative connotation -- is never going to reach all the way to to the ground. It may one day appear to touch the ground, but then a scientist will point out that the crutch's atoms are not actually touching the ground's atoms at all....

"...then you are going to be useless as a scientist".

I have no intention or desire to be a scientist. Faith based beliefs are either right or wrong. I'm of the belief that faith based are the correct way for multiple reasons I won't go into here. I believe science and faith can both exist side by side with one not contradicting the other. I also believe that humans are good at explaining things, but not good at coming up with the correct results. There's always something not yet discovered that changes things.

Yes, let's just keep this simple, please.

And remember, Peter said "Evolution. Do you agree or disagree that it is currently the best explanation we have for how the current diversity of life on Planet Earth came to be?"

Implicit in that phrase is the acknowledgment of the existence of other explanations and the possibility of the development of new, and better, explanations.

With this wording, no one agreeing or disagreeing can be assumed to have a closed mind on the issue.

LOL. Man, you're making it very difficult to stir up trouble.

Well, sometimes. Then it's time to reassess. A discovery that changes things is exciting! New knowledge! Going back to the drawing board is not a defeat in science. It's actually crucial to the discovery of new data, testing of hypotheses, and development of theory.

However, many times there are things that are discovered which fit well with current theory. It's cool when the predictions work.

There are things that are known, and things that are unknown. Give me a good scientist who wants to find the things that are unknown. That's how you get new medicines, new iPads, and you land on Mars.

Please pass the Karl POPPERcorn.

Jack, you forgot to include the most important sentence in the Peter's message; his opening statement:



The following paragraph starts off stating the aforementioned subject:



The wording is quite clear that there's one subject in question. Or at least that's the way it appears to me. Obviously only Peter knows, and I'm sure he'll side with one of his buddies.

What the hell? That just doesn't seem very nice.

Tom, I've been lambasted numerous times while others get a free pass doing the same f'in thing.

Oh, I guess it's okay, then.

This thread is turning out to be quite a bit of fun.

FWIW, science has gone beyond carbon dating as it cannot always be applied accurately. Don't ask me for the details, I seem to have run out of brain cells to store this type of stuff.

I don't see that the belief in evolution and the belief in god need to be mutually exclusive.

Exlabdude, I actually enjoy discussion with people that don't agree with me. It forces me to take a closer look at the things I believe to be true. Occasionally it leads to new knowledge (or even cool videos of pyroclastic flows).

Establishing a baseline of scientific knowledge based on belief in a single scientific principle strikes me as a little contrived. Belief (and scientific understanding are) a little more nuanced than that.

[For arguments sake], it strikes me that if god had created a simple system (evolution) that has such complex and beautiful results it would be far more than impressive than creating the whole thing in 7 days and then that's the end of the story.

Yes, Fred, but Peter's proposition is more fun. What Peter is suggesting is that anyone who disagrees with him is a scientific moron and it is that lack of basic scientific knowledge which provides a sufficient explanation as to why anyone would disagree with his 'settled truths.'

Set aside for a moment the self serving circularity of his proposition and just appreciate the stunning elitism Peter displayed.

As to your suggestion that the Eternal One works through a simple (Mandelbrot like self-referential elaborating) principle, I like it. However, I don't think the theory is sufficient to explain the development of certain characteristics. (Random mutations which confer a reproductive advantage.)

Random mutations that confer a reproductive advantage have a higher chance of being passed on than those that have a neutral or negative effect on reproduction. Simply being alive is an important factor in reproducing...

We are all products of thousands upon thousands of random mutations, accumulated over vast amounts of time, most of which either had no effect or a positive effect on the organisms in which they occurred in the environment in which which they lived.

You're right. I should have phrased my survey in a better way and perhaps used a more established theory -- Gravity? -- to avoid offense, so we could all arrive at a mutually agreeable detente.

This is much more entertaining. Which was the reason you started this thread.

As for that "his friends will circle round him" crap, I already lambasted him in person.

Or maybe we'll circle round him and kick him.

Gravity!

Excellent choice! Now there is something we can all agree we really know nothing about!

We think we know something about it, we can state and solve Newton's gravitational equations, and Einstein's, (so long as you're not asking to solve for too many variables) but really, human understanding of gravity though functional pales in the presence of the magnificence of creation.

I just don't understand why you think that just because I posted a topic which challenges beliefs you hold to be true is hostile or looking for a fight or otherwise disagreeable.

Can't we just have a friendly argument?

Indeed. To misquote the queen: "We are amused."

No such thing as gravity .


THE EARTH SUCKS

Is that the scary queen?

It's the Great Attractor, out there somewhere that sucks.

I miss the watch thread.

I agree with JohnK about the Emporio Armani great looking watches. I like the Seiko 5s.

Cam, I have no idea what you are talking about. What subject, other than evolution, did I bring up? What egregious sin did I commit?

On the internet, one must work extra hard not to read anything into the other side's words. We've both of us already proven we have difficulty with that.

This statement just may be the most classic example of projection I've ever seen on a forum anywhere.

I don't think your statement is true, Jack, and I don't think you can back it up.

I think you've been sent here by an alien race to torment us. I don't think you can disprove that.

Good, go back to sleep now. Sorry to have bothered you, Peter.

I think you have come close to achieving your goal of sucking all the life out of this forum and rendering it inert and quiet.

Arouse the faithful only when a stranger comes and asks the magic questions:

My room is 8' x 8'. Should I get a pair of M80s, the VP100 or the VP180 ... Why does my EP500 hum but produce no bass?

And the faithful rush in hoping to be the first to give the correct answers and run up their post count.

15,518 Peter!!

Keep up the good work. Sshhh.

Hey, every time I'm called a tool, I feel a negative connotation.

Well, I certainly could never back it up to your satisfaction. Fortunately, there is no need to. You've proved it to MY satisfaction and that is all that is necessary. After all, it is you who are throwing out all the insults (calling people elitists and implying that anyone who would agree with Peter does so only to raise their post count) simply because they disagree with your point of view.

Yes, Peter has risen to your bait, probably much more than he is proud of. Me too. But then, you are a master baiter.

You state "I just don't understand why you [Peter] think that just because I posted a topic which challenges beliefs you hold to be true is hostile or looking for a fight or otherwise disagreeable.
" I can't answer for Peter, of course, but In your first post you said, "Global warming ... today's Lysenkoism, brought to you by political elites who silence dissenting scientific voices." To me, this implies that anyone who believes global warming is real is, at best, a dupe of political elites, or at worst, one of those political elites interested in silencing those who do not believe it is real. You don't think that is looking for a fight or disagreeable? OY!

It is YOU who started this controversial thread with a shot across the bow of any who don't see it your way. It is YOU who appears, to my eyes, to have the goal of sucking all the life out of this forum and rendering it inert and quiet. To accuse others of this is projection.

Will that back up my statement to your satisfaction? NAH! It satisfies me. I can only hope it satisfies others.

I would say "Great post, Jack!" but then I might be rallying around him. And it would be bad to support my friend.

Astute summation, Jack.



But that's only the personal opinion of a life-sucking mega-poster.

Agreed, Ken. Jack nailed it.

Seems to me what has happened is that 2x6 has felt that the boards are dull, so he's tried to change that by taking a lead role in this thread debating evolution and global warming. He even tossed out the topic of whether Obama should be reelected, but I'm glad to see that no one took the bait on that one. Even a master baiter won't get a bite every time.

However, 2x6's style of argument is just as Jack says. He seems to fancy himself an authority, or at least that's how it comes across to me. Don't disagree with him, or things will quickly devolve to insults and sarcasm. That doesn't happen with most of the folks around here, but it often happens with 2x6. That may work in a court room (does it?), but it's not working here. My two cents.

dic8r,

If wheelz or 2*6 stirs the pot, pounce like a coyote on a mouse.

If it is a "top poster" that stirs the pot, in this case hijacking a calm global warming thread with evolution *high fives all around*

Did you just call me a dick?

LOL

I thought you would appreciate it the most since you like taking liberty with my screen names.

Sorry to disappoint you, but there's no conspiracy afoot against 2x6, Cam, or you.

On these message boards, and in life, if I agree with someone, I say so. If I disagree with someone, I say so. I try to focus on the content rather than who said it. I try my best to listen to and respect others' opinions.

If someone disagrees with me, I look at what I said to (a) make sure I said what I meant to say and (b) reevaluate what I said given any new info. You know, sometimes I'm wrong, and when people disagree with me, sometimes I learn things. I don't have all the answers. Humility will get you a long way.

If someone disagrees with me, what I don't do is accuse others of having some secret agenda or conspiracy against me. For any of you to suggest so, in my opinion, makes you look bad. It's whining. It's playing the victim card for all it's worth. How's that working out for you?

The contents of this pot were already in motion when I added my stirring to what 2x6 had already instigated. You're correct in your assessment that I was trying to hijack the thread, and I've been trying to dose it with bits of levity along the way, as well.

I'd like everybody to note that none of us "top posters" -- or anyone in our so-called "fan club" -- would have started this thread. You have 2x6 alone to thank for that. His confrontational first post was crafted in such a way to virtually preclude a "friendly discussion" -- and then he hypocritically accused me of doing the same.

I think what we really need is some newbie <redacted> bashing Axiom speakers. Then we can aim the knives outward.

I agree with Peter and Ken. The Virginia Association for the Oppression of Certain Axiomites has spoken!

Oh crap. Because of the move I forgot to send in my dues. What's the grace period on that?

Wait. I propose we rename ourselves the Virginia Axiomite Suppression Team. We can steal this logo from the Virginia Association of Science Teachers, our brothers in the fight to indoctrinate all in the theory of evolution! The irony is too great! HA HA HAAAAA.

The Grace period will be once a month.

Oooh, Ooooh! And our secret greeting can be Arrrr, aVAST matie. Who's designing the tshirt?

Wait a second. You don't live in Virginia. Get your grubby virtual hands off my virtual t-shirt.

I don't see it as an agenda or conspiracy going on. You perhaps might be imagining that. I rather see it as a large group trying to maintain the status quo. This forum is a wonderful social experiment in groupthink IMO.

So, when people have a disagreement with you, the problem is not a conspiracy, it's groupthink. Got it.

Um, sorry, JP. I already have a VAST in my life. My kids' swim team.



I think it's funny how flexible the definition of "large group" can be. I also think it's funny that some people seem compelled to spend their lives on negativity.

I've met real friends here. I've learned a lot here. Mostly, I have fun here. I have an interest in perpetuating a culture of friendship, learning and fun. If that makes me a defender of the status quo, so be it.

Not accurate.

Well said, Tom, as usual.

Tom Groupie!

He's not even close to Virginia.

JP: isn't it, by definition, a VAST Conspiracy?

Is that one of those wooden roller coasters?

If it is, I'd rather ride it from right-to-left than left-to-right. Does that make me a terrorist?

No. It just means you like "going the other way".

Which means you're a terrorist.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Well, it's a small group so it's more like a half-vast conspiracy.

That's good, Jack!

I just want to personally thank 2x6 for this thread. It has been by far the most entertaining here in a while.

Now, carry on with your grope think stuff.

Good news. After months of heated negotiations, I'm hoping to polish off a deal with free agent JohnK that will bring his talents to South Beach the Suppression Team. As luck would have it, he's been living in Lynchburg the whole time, so no relocation will be necessary.

Not fair. JohnK just loves classical music and Dolby. He would never bully anyone .

Whut eef ee came at you wit a pointed stick?

Whut eef ee came at you wit a tube amp?

Shut up. Right, now you, Mr. Apricot.