Yes, I believe in Intelligent Design -- the creation of a universe at the hands of a Divine Being.
The "Theory of Evolution" is just that -- a theory. It is not science.
I have no idea what you mean by this statement. Are you saying that theories are not part of science? If so, then I am afraid that your lack of education in science has never been more evident.
Science is a process, not a set of facts. Science is a method for attempting to understanding relationships and causes in our universe. Scientific ideas are based on hypotheses and experiments designed to test those hypotheses. Ultimately, our ideas about how things happen and work based on scientific experiment are a matter of probabilities. We set up hypotheses, we design experiments to test the validity of those hypotheses. When results are consistent, they provide support for the hypothesis and when they are inconsistent, they indicate a need to modify the hypothesis.
The more data we find that are consistent with a hypothesis and the less data we find inconsistent with that hypothesis, the more likely it is to be correct. Ultimately, in some cases we accumulate such a large body of evidence consistent with a hypothesis that we call it a Theory. That simply means that there is a very high probability that it is correct.
The Theory of Evolution has been arrived at by that type of thinking, reasoning, and hypothesis testing. That is why it is science.
There are no hypotheses about Intelligent Design. There are no experiments testing hypotheses or predictions based on such hypotheses. That is why it is not science. It is a belief. One cannot set a probability about its likelihood because one cannot design experiments to test it in the way one can design testable ideas about evolution.
I would have hoped that even in the few science courses you did take that you would have learned about scientific methodology, scientific reasoning, and scientific logic. And that you would have learned to distinguish between science and belief. You are not alone. Unfortunately, a very large number of people simply do not understand this basic concept.
You are free to believe in Intelligent Design, but your belief does not come from scientific reasoning. In every introductory philosophy course one learns that one can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God, because the notion of God is neither a logical or scientific concept. It is a belief. In the same way, there are no testable hypotheses or predictions that derive from Intelligent Design and therefore we cannot get data that increase or decrease the probability of it being correct, unlike evolution.
[SOAPBOX]Which brings up a good point. I think Mr. Gore has had a negative impact on the public's acceptance of climate change. While the IPCC ...[/SOAPBOX]
Much as I might like the man, I think you have a good point here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AquaDyne
I refer you to post 7 of this thread, quoted below, with the bolded portion showing you where you have equated creationism and the denial of [anthropogenic because of the context of post 5, to which you were answering] climate change, and subsequent posts when you lumped those who objected to the anthropogenic nature of climate change together with the wackos who deny it entirely, as well as gravity deniers.
I'm not exactly sure what you think I mean by equating the two and I'm not exactly sure what you mean. When someone says that they think I am equating climate change deniers and creationists, I think they're saying that I believe the set of climate change deniers and creationists have complete overlap. IOW, they're saying that I think every climate change denier is a creationist and vice versa. That's not what I'm saying.
What I am saying is that there are commonalities in the arguments they use (and don't use!) to make their case. Canadians and Americans have commonalities, but that doesn't make every Canadian an American nor vice versa. Just because carpenters and painters both use ladders doesn't qualify a carpenter to paint.
I should add another point there: it's not the veracity of the cases the two are making that I'm attempting to address here, it's the way in which they argue.
Also, I think "climate change denier" isn't the best term, but it was the best I could do on short notice.
(Oh, and, I'm also glad and amazed and thrilled that the Saints managed to pull out a W this afternoon! 12-0! )
Programs: DL/NW silver, Spirit Somebody; CO, UA once gold now dirt. AA & US for magazines.
Posts: 6,121
Well, there might be considerable overlap between the creationists and the end-times folks, but I think it's the latter that can be very unhelpful when it comes to the global-warming debate. Global warming somehow becomes God's plan (even the man-made kind, as it was pre-destined) and maybe we'll have an armaggeddon but we'll also have a rapture first, and having the sinners and heathens and others burn up is a very Biblical kind of punishment anyway so it must be God's will. (Nuclear war, OTOH, can't be because it doesn't have the same "fairness" to it that the rapture scenario would). Add in a dash of fatalism (there's nothing we can do about it) and it's the perfect recipe for an unhelpful bloc politically. Corporations are already cynically targeting them by putting more green in their logos (!) or doing commercials with messages like "You're already doing something to help the environment" (by consuming their product).
Oh and I might add (again!) that I'm a religious agnostic, not a Creationist. And I'm an agnostic on the A part of the AGW theory, who's now leaning towards skepticism. I could be wrong but I'm openly acknowledging that. The irony of all this is the side that has almost a religious dogmatic devotion to the subject is those pushing the AGW theory. The response to manipulation, fraud, deceit, and possibly breaking of the law (in regards to Freedom of Information requests) has been to insist on...blind faith! I've heard "You're not a scientist" countless times in this thread, which ignores the fact that the ClimateGate scandal has nothing to do with science but rather the manipulation of data in order to comport with a theory.
Exactly.
The actual condition of the earth is whatever it is, but the faith toward a model which fails to predict actual conditions is disheartening.
But that's what faith is - belief in the unproven.
Yes, I believe in Intelligent Design -- the creation of a universe at the hands of a Divine Being.
The "Theory of Evolution" is just that -- a theory. It is not science. It is as impossible for you to prove that evolution occurred as the result of chance mutations surviving because they were the fittest as it is for me to prove that various species evolved (and, indeed, are still evolving) because a Divine Intelligence purposely put the process in motion.
Science can track what happened with a good (albeit not infallible) record of success. It can not determine why it happened. Anyone who claims that science has proven that there was no Intelligent Design behind evolution has less of a knowledge of science than even I do -- which is, in itself, a remarkable achievement.
Correction. Evolution is only a theory when it comes to explaining the past.
It is proven reality when it comes to here-and-now because, as you noted, we have both observed (and prompted) evolution of life.
It's important to note the difference between applying a theory to the past (like evolution of human beings), applying the science to the present (observation and human-forced evolution), and extrapolating the science into the future.
Evolution is a well established science for the present and the future, but still an unproven theory when it comes to the past.
Climate science is in progress for the present, theoretical when it comes to the past, and useless when it comes to the future.
Limitations are what's important to consider when proclaiming the difference between a theory and a science.
I have no idea what you mean by this statement. Are you saying that theories are not part of science? If so, then I am afraid that your lack of education in science has never been more evident.
Theories are a starting point. Until such time as they are proven to be true they are not scientific fact.
Nothing -- not a single thing -- that science has discovered even starts to hint that the theory that evolution is the result of unplanned survival of the fittest has been proven to be true.
Yes, it is fact that man (and other species) evolved. Yes, there is also extremely strong indications that the fittest were the ones who survived (although even that is questionable). Nothing, however, supports the hypothesis that this was unplanned -- that there is no Divine Creator.
Am I wrong? If so, please show me your evidence.
If you have no evidence, then admit that just like the most deeply religious worshipper, you are working solely on belief. You believe there is no god. The only difference between your belief and that of a theist is that the theist admits that he bases his on faith while you claim, quite falsely, to base yours on science.
Last edited by Dovster; Dec 6, 09 at 10:22 pm..
Reason: type O
Dov, my apologies. I think you have a definition of 'creationist' that is very different than the one with which most of us, well I at the very least, are/am working with. In fact, I really don't have any issue with your notion of the concept. However, I am indeed referring to biblical literalists. Your notion isn't really all that germane to the topic of the thread, I would add, as your notion of what creationism is doesn't even address the science behind creation -- hence, there's no argument to even be had there.
Yet others in this thread continue to argue that my scientifically unsupported beliefs are unscientific while their scientifically unsupported beliefs are, somehow, scientific.
In any case, if the OP wants to continue to assert that creationism and AGW skepticism are the same, and by extension that the scientific consensus is that most new species very likely arose through evolution, I think we just have to let him live with that delusion.
To your first point, that's definitely a fair point. However, it should be pointed out that James Hansen, the man who heads the NASA climate group is the most extreme of the AGW supporters. He actually wants the Copenhagen summit to fail, not because he thinks it's a bad idea but because he doesn't think it's extreme enough.
Quote:
The scientist who convinced the world to take notice of the looming danger of global warming says it would be better for the planet and for future generations if next week's Copenhagen climate change summit ended in collapse.
Hansen is also fiercely critical of Barack Obama – and even Al Gore, who won a Nobel peace prize for his efforts to get the world to act on climate change – saying politicians have failed to meet what he regards as the moral challenge of our age.
In Hansen's view, dealing with climate change allows no room for the compromises that rule the world of elected politics. "This is analagous to the issue of slavery faced by Abraham Lincoln or the issue of Nazism faced by Winston Churchill," he said. "On those kind of issues you cannot compromise. You can't say let's reduce slavery, let's find a compromise and reduce it 50% or reduce it 40%."
Additionally, it wasn't until Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick (referred to as M&M in the ClimateGate emails) pointed out some of the flaws in Hansen's data that it too was changed (it wasn't just the CRU's data that was manipulated to comport with the theory), with its peak temperature readings changing with each subsequent adjustment. I believe you're correct that following their third adjustment, Hansen is now claiming 2005 is the warmest year. This after previous iterations showed 1998 and then 1934. You want to believe Hansen's data? Go right ahead. I take it with a grain of salt.
As for your second point, I'm sorry but I simply cannot allow the OP's deliberate attempt to portray all opposition to the AGW theory as akin to Creationism to continue unchallenged. I'm generally a forgiving person, but I do not buy the OP's attempts to make a distinction between what he/she deems reasonable opposition (thus far he apparently hasn't seen any) and Creationism. The OP has littered the thread with the implication that the two are one in the same. When challenged, he doesn't come out and say but it's been implied continuously. Sorry, it's a cute debate tactic but it doesn't fly with me. Perhaps the tactics worked in the early 2000s and maybe even as recently as a month ago. But post-ClimateGate emails, I've got some news for the OP: That ship as sailed. The public has caught on.
Quote:
Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Americans say it’s at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming. Thirty-five percent (35%) say it’s Very Likely. Just 26% say it’s not very or not at all likely that some scientists falsified data.
This skepticism does not appear to be the result of the recent disclosure of e-mails confirming such data falsification as part of the so-called “Climategate” scandal. Just 20% of Americans say they’ve followed news reports about those e-mails Very Closely, while another 29% have followed them Somewhat Closely.
So even before the ClimateGate scandal, the public believed the data was being skewed to fit an agenda. And the ClimateGate emails confirm that that is indeed what was happening. Not all of the public is composed of Creationist Jesus-freaks. Sorry, the OP's implications will no longer stand. A vote for cap-and-trade legislation is nothing more than political suicide at this point. Which is why it's all but dead at this point.
It's clear the OP doesn't even understand the arguments opponents are making at this point. It's kind of sad that I've had to explain roughly 5 or 6 times (in this very thread alone) that I'm not disputing that the climate is changing, nor am I even disputing the warming temperatures prior to 1998. I'm disputing the A part of the AGW theory which links CO2 emissions to increased temperatures.
Is it possible the two are linked? Yes. But the data doesn't show that. Which is why the data had to be manipulated in order to "produce" it.
__________________
The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is. -Winston Churchill
Programs: Piggly Wiggly "Shop the Pig!" Preferred Shopper
Posts: 8,223
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dovster
Yet others in this thread continue to argue that my scientifically unsupported beliefs are unscientific while their scientifically unsupported beliefs are, somehow, scientific.
Whatever others are doing, Dov, I assure you that iapetus is a brilliant and open-minded guy interested in a genuine discussion on this topic. As you might have noticed, you and I tend to agree on almost everything.
Right. I merely asked that people who disagree with the idea behind anthropogenically-induced climate change start offering scientific arguments to back up their claims. AquaDyne, the article to which you linked does indeed begin to do this. The arguments presented therein are scientific in nature and, I think, can be construed as reasonable arguments against AGW or ACC or whatever you wish to call it. Thank you.
I'm about 1/3 of the way through this document. I'd be happy to discuss the arguments presented once I'm done looking it at it (but first I've got to watch the Saints lose to the Redskins, among other things), though I should state up front that I already have some issues with what I was reading.
However, I also want to point out that a discussion of climate change is not why I started this thread. There are numerous OMNI threads that go on ad nauseum with people arguing cross purposes on this topic. What I wanted to point out is that people, and OMNIites in particular, never seem to back up their claims that the science behind climate change is bogus with actual science. They rely on anecdotal evidence, such as ClimateGate. Creationists do the same. What (I think) they should be doing is coming up with their own theories to describe what is going on and using observational data to prove or disprove them. Stating that one data set is inconsistent with the predictions of one theory in and of itself does not mean the theory is baseless. This is the equivalent of calling all of special relativity and our understanding of gravity to be bunk simply because we have never observed a graviton or because some group illegimately claimed to have done so.
Finally, I have said this multiple times in this thread, but I am not equating creationism and the denial of anthropogenic climate change. Please show me where I have. What I am saying is that the two camps employ arguments that do not directly address the science they are trying to disprove.
And, BTW, many creationists think they have legitimate scientific arguments against evolution.
Let's dissect this. You imply scientific arguments need to be used to refute "the science behind climate change". But I'm not a scientist, don't pretend to be one and I'm not disputing the science behind climate change. What I am asserting is that the evidence linking CO2 emissions to increases in temperatures is bullsh*t. I'm an economist so I know my way around data sets. I know when bullsh*t theories are being portrayed as reality. And so did McIntyre and so did McKintrick (one being a geologist and one being an environmental economist). Which is why they challenged the data and why the CRU group was so eager to hide everything. There was no there there, as the ClimateGate emails have shown.
You seem to assert that I must then advance some sort of alternative theory, conduct scientific experiments in my back yard and get back to you. I don't have to do anything of the sort. That doesn't even logically make sense. If you assert 2 + 2 = 5, I can simply disprove you without have to turn around and prove it actually equals 4. Likewise if you assert a theory, such as CO2 emissions are highly correlated with degrees Celcius, I can simply find fault with your theory without having to produce my own alternate theory.
You want my own alternate theory? Sun spots, natural variations in temperature and probably some element of mankind is involved in the process. But it doesn't really mean anything, because again 1) I'm not a scientist, and 2) don't pretend to be one.
I've continuously asserted one (and only one) thing throughout this and previously related threads: the data behind the A in the AGW theory is bullsh*t. It's been tampered with, manipulated, and literally deleted when inquired about. This does not exactly produce a lot of confidence. As someone who works in the social sciences (economics), I'm familiar with frauds and hucksters asserting theories that have no basis in reality. I'm coming to the conclusion that this could be one of them.
So stop claiming things I've never said and stop implying I'm a closet Creationist. The more you do so and the harder I'll punch back.
I find it amusing how self assured some on the "the debate is over" crowd are. Need I remind them that environmental scientists were asserting anthropogenic global cooling phenomenons only 3 decades ago? That environmental scientists were asserting that humans were destined for massive starvation since food production couldn't keep up with population growth (the Population Bomb)? But there's no way they have it wrong this time right? Right???
It's not like environmental science has a good track record when it comes to highly alarmist claims about eventual catastrophes. You want to accept some of this stuff on blind faith even in light of emails exposing outright dishonesty? That's your prerogative. It's not mine.
__________________
The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is. -Winston Churchill
Whatever others are doing, Dov, I assure you that iapetus is a brilliant and open-minded guy interested in a genuine discussion on this topic. As you might have noticed, you and I tend to agree on almost everything.
I realize you haven't addressed this to me but I have been hard on iapetus in this thread. Perhaps you are right but I have yet to see this open-mindedness in the thread thus far. I also hate that he continues to imply things rather than having the courage to outright say them. By only implying (but then denying an outright accusation when confronted about it), it gives the impression that he is being "above it all" while wink-winking to those who happen to agree with his position. Sorry, the notion that questioning the data behind the A in the AGW is some sort of secret Creationist plot looks particularly silly in light of the ClimateGate emails.
Mr. McIntyre and Mr. McKintrick are both a geologist and a environmental economist. It's already been explained how geology ties in with paleoclimatology and how environmental economics ties in with regression analysis and potential data manipulation and thus how these two are extremely qualified to opine on this topic. And these two have done the world a real service by questioning some of the data behind the A part of the AGW theory with regards to carbon emissions. It's clear many feel threatened by this. And perhaps they should be.
__________________
The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is. -Winston Churchill
Much as I might like the man, I think you have a good point here.
I wish he hadn't sighed so much in that second debate. I think the sighs lost him the election. Well, that and a bunch of people who couldn't punch the right hole on their ballot in Florida.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iapetus
I'm not exactly sure what you think I mean by equating the two and I'm not exactly sure what you mean. When someone says that they think I am equating climate change deniers and creationists, I think they're saying that I believe the set of climate change deniers and creationists have complete overlap. IOW, they're saying that I think every climate change denier is a creationist and vice versa. That's not what I'm saying.
No, that's not what I think you're saying or think you mean. Let me try to break it down... flyinbob asked, "What do you consider a climate change "denier"? Someone who denies the climate is changing, or someone who questions the science that links climate change to human activity?"
The two are distinctly different, IMO. Those who deny the climate is changing are ignoring the mountains of evidence of rising temperatures, the fact that the last decade had the 5 hottest years in the century, and other important data. I don't think any credible scientists hold this view.
However, there are plenty of people who think that today's warming might be the result of the same or similar causes of the Medieval Warm Period, the end of the Ice Age, and many other incidents of Global Warming that have occurred in the past, non-anthropogenically. I believe that most credible climate scientists attempt to allow for this possibility in their models; and typically are unable to model the warming without including anthropogenic sources (or some other unknown variable which correlates with anthropogenic sources).
In your answer, you specifically grouped both of those people together. You said, "I would put both people in the "denier" camp, particularly given the way you've phrased that question."
You grouped those who can't read a chart and see a line trending upward with those who think that the planet's 6th episode of global warming is more similar to the previous 5 than something totally new. And you didn't stop there. You continued to claim that both of the groups listed above did not use scientifically valid arguments, and lumped both of the above groups together with creationists, flat-earthers, and gravity-deniers.
What I meant by "equating" is that you put all those 5 groups of people (those who deny the climate is changing, those who question the science that links climate change to human activity, creationists, flat-earthers, and gravity deniers) on the same level playing field.
Four of those groups have zero scientific basis for their positions. I objected to you including the fifth group: those who question the science that links climate change to human activity. There actually ARE scientists who have models that explain the climate change without (or with insignificant) CO2-based warming. We've gone back and forth trying to cite these... I've decided it's simply best to cite the IPCC's consensus which left the door open for these models, but placed their likelihood at <5%.
The IPCC (or any other scientific body) would make no such qualification for any of the other 4 groups you listed. Please read the following 5 statements and tell me which of them are absurd, and which are reasonable:
A. The probability that the climate is not changing is less than 5%.
B. The probability that recent climate change is caused by natural climatic processes alone is less than 5%.
C. The probability that the diverse population of species on earth is caused by an intelligent designer is less than 5%.
D. The probability that the earth is flat is less than 5%.
E. The probability that gravity does not exist is less than 5%.
Do you think it's fair to lump the all the people making each of these statements together?
I don't. One of them has scientific basis for some number greater than zero; the other four do not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iapetus
What I am saying is that there are commonalities in the arguments they use (and don't use!) to make their case.
I don't argue this, nor the content of your original post in this thread. My beef is/was with your post #7, and your repeated (until recently) implications that there was no scientific evidence opposing a 100% certainty in man-made global warming.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iapetus
I should add another point there: it's not the veracity of the cases the two are making that I'm attempting to address here, it's the way in which they argue.
Again, your OP was spot on. Your later posts less so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iapetus
Also, I think "climate change denier" isn't the best term, but it was the best I could do on short notice.
Here's the thing:
1. I believe in gravity.
2. I do not believe that a significant amount of gravity is caused by humans.
I think calling me a "gravity denier" would be absurd given those two definitions, don't you?
Similarly:
1. I believe the climate is changing.
2. I'm not 100% certain that a significant amount of climate change is caused by humans.
Calling me a "climate change denier" with those opinions (which you essentially did in your post #7) seems dishonest. Lumping legitimate objections into wild, extreme, straw man positions may be a common debating technique, but it's usually done when you don't have much to support your own argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iapetus
(Oh, and, I'm also glad and amazed and thrilled that the Saints managed to pull out a W this afternoon! 12-0! )
My wife is from New Orleans and is equally thrilled. Me, I'm a Broncos fan (8-4 ain't too shabby but could have been better). We're hoping for a DEN/NO super bowl and you can bet we'll be there if it's the case!
__________________
“A good traveler has no fixed plans and is not intent on arriving.” -- Lao Tzu
)
I've heard "You're not a scientist" countless times in this thread, which ignores the fact that the ClimateGate scandal has nothing to do with science but rather the manipulation of data in order to comport with a theory.
