Comments on: The Global Warming Hoax - And What To Do About It http://www.cheatseekingmissiles.com/2008/11/29/the-global-warming-hoax-and-what-to-do-about-it/ Thu, 29 Jul 2010 12:59:39 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Rob http://www.cheatseekingmissiles.com/2008/11/29/the-global-warming-hoax-and-what-to-do-about-it/#comment-2041 Rob Sun, 04 Jan 2009 00:21:02 +0000 http://www.cheatseekingmissiles.com/?p=6133#comment-2041 Yes, it absolutely would be and is. There's no question about that, and "they" are equally culpable. I'm an equal opportunity complainer - I make the same complaints on those blogs when I see such bias. It's exactly the problem that leaves an educated layperson such as myself in a quandry.   As I've expressed on such sites, I'm really the perfect target. I have an education in science, mathematical abilities, the ability to think critically, and have reached no conclusions. On the other hand, I have a business and a family and thus am without the time or the background to piece it together from scholarly journals or to engage in original research.   This makes it all the more frustrating because I rarely, if ever, come across authors of AGW related articles that "don't have a dog in the fight." And yet, whoever is right, the correct answer is crucially important in that, should the proponents of either viewpoint prevail in policy decisions and be wrong, the results would be disastrous.<div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('2041','Rob'); return false;">Reply</a> - <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('2041','Rob','Yes, it absolutely would be and is. There\'s no question about that, and \"they\" are equally culpable. I\'m an equal opportunity complainer - I make the same complaints on those blogs when I see such bias. It\'s exactly the problem that leaves an educated layperson such as myself in a quandry.\r\n \r\nAs I\'ve expressed on such sites, I\'m really the perfect target. I have an education in science, mathematical abilities, the ability to think critically, and have reached no conclusions. On the other hand, I have a business and a family and thus am without the time or the background to piece it together from scholarly journals or to engage in original research.\r\n \r\nThis makes it all the more frustrating because I rarely, if ever, come across authors of AGW related articles that \"don\'t have a dog in the fight.\" And yet, whoever is right, the correct answer is crucially important in that, should the proponents of either viewpoint prevail in policy decisions and be wrong, the results would be disastrous.'); return false;">Quote</a></div> Yes, it absolutely would be and is. There’s no question about that, and “they” are equally culpable. I’m an equal opportunity complainer - I make the same complaints on those blogs when I see such bias. It’s exactly the problem that leaves an educated layperson such as myself in a quandry.
 
As I’ve expressed on such sites, I’m really the perfect target. I have an education in science, mathematical abilities, the ability to think critically, and have reached no conclusions. On the other hand, I have a business and a family and thus am without the time or the background to piece it together from scholarly journals or to engage in original research.
 
This makes it all the more frustrating because I rarely, if ever, come across authors of AGW related articles that “don’t have a dog in the fight.” And yet, whoever is right, the correct answer is crucially important in that, should the proponents of either viewpoint prevail in policy decisions and be wrong, the results would be disastrous.
Reply - Quote
]]> By: Laer http://www.cheatseekingmissiles.com/2008/11/29/the-global-warming-hoax-and-what-to-do-about-it/#comment-2039 Laer Sat, 03 Jan 2009 23:28:07 +0000 http://www.cheatseekingmissiles.com/?p=6133#comment-2039 I don't mean to be a dolt, but wouldn't having a bias in fact selection that is clearly liberal in its bias be just as suspect?  Yet that's what the AGW mainstream does all the time.<div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('2039','Laer'); return false;">Reply</a> - <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('2039','Laer','I don\'t mean to be a dolt, but wouldn\'t having a bias in fact selection that is clearly liberal in its bias be just as suspect?  Yet that\'s what the AGW mainstream does all the time.'); return false;">Quote</a></div> I don’t mean to be a dolt, but wouldn’t having a bias in fact selection that is clearly liberal in its bias be just as suspect?  Yet that’s what the AGW mainstream does all the time.
Reply - Quote
]]> By: Rob http://www.cheatseekingmissiles.com/2008/11/29/the-global-warming-hoax-and-what-to-do-about-it/#comment-2038 Rob Sat, 03 Jan 2009 21:51:15 +0000 http://www.cheatseekingmissiles.com/?p=6133#comment-2038 True enough, the laws of thermodynamics, Newton's laws of motion, the Navier Stokes equations, Maxwell's equations, Planck's law of radiation, Wien's law, and the Stefan Boltzmann law  (the applicable principles of physics involved) are without a liberal/conservative bias. But fact selection is frequently biased, something about which I've blogged frequently. Peden represents that he's clarifying for the benefit of the scientific layperson who has no basis to know if Peden is "fact picking" or not. I don't claim that he is, I only state that his claim of not having a bias in fact selection in light of the clear conservative bias of his "interpretation" of those facts makes his conclusions more suspect than otherwise.   I've read the entire article, complete with his post scripts. It will take extensive research to determine whether his interpretation is valid.   I'll report back.   P.s.: Note that I've now absorbed your admonition to double space between paragraphs.<div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('2038','Rob'); return false;">Reply</a> - <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('2038','Rob','True enough, the laws of thermodynamics, Newton\'s laws of motion, the Navier Stokes equations, Maxwell\'s equations, Planck\'s law of radiation, Wien\'s law, and the Stefan Boltzmann law  (the applicable principles of physics involved) are without a liberal\/conservative bias. But fact selection is frequently biased, something about which I\'ve blogged frequently. Peden represents that he\'s clarifying for the benefit of the scientific layperson who has no basis to know if Peden is \"fact picking\" or not. I don\'t claim that he is, I only state that his claim of not having a bias in fact selection in light of the clear conservative bias of his \"interpretation\" of those facts makes his conclusions more suspect than otherwise.\r\n \r\nI\'ve read the entire article, complete with his post scripts. It will take extensive research to determine whether his interpretation is valid.\r\n \r\nI\'ll report back.\r\n \r\nP.s.: Note that I\'ve now absorbed your admonition to double space between paragraphs.'); return false;">Quote</a></div> True enough, the laws of thermodynamics, Newton’s laws of motion, the Navier Stokes equations, Maxwell’s equations, Planck’s law of radiation, Wien’s law, and the Stefan Boltzmann law  (the applicable principles of physics involved) are without a liberal/conservative bias. But fact selection is frequently biased, something about which I’ve blogged frequently. Peden represents that he’s clarifying for the benefit of the scientific layperson who has no basis to know if Peden is “fact picking” or not. I don’t claim that he is, I only state that his claim of not having a bias in fact selection in light of the clear conservative bias of his “interpretation” of those facts makes his conclusions more suspect than otherwise.
 
I’ve read the entire article, complete with his post scripts. It will take extensive research to determine whether his interpretation is valid.
 
I’ll report back.
 
P.s.: Note that I’ve now absorbed your admonition to double space between paragraphs.
Reply - Quote
]]> By: Laer http://www.cheatseekingmissiles.com/2008/11/29/the-global-warming-hoax-and-what-to-do-about-it/#comment-2037 Laer Sat, 03 Jan 2009 20:51:03 +0000 http://www.cheatseekingmissiles.com/?p=6133#comment-2037 <p>I'd suggest you get beyond the black body radiation, hockey stick and Al Gore and read on, Rob.  He covers much more. The hockey stick is quite relevant because for years it was widely accepted without peer review, which speaks to the lemming quality of much AGW theory.  I don't understand your comment about liberal or conservative - what do political positions have to do with science?  If it's science, there should be no differentiation between conservative and liberal perceptions as is the case with, say, thermodynamics.</p><div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('2037','Laer'); return false;">Reply</a> - <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('2037','Laer','<p>I\'d suggest you get beyond the black body radiation, hockey stick and Al Gore and read on, Rob.  He covers much more. The hockey stick is quite relevant because for years it was widely accepted without peer review, which speaks to the lemming quality of much AGW theory.  I don\'t understand your comment about liberal or conservative - what do political positions have to do with science?  If it\'s science, there should be no differentiation between conservative and liberal perceptions as is the case with, say, thermodynamics.<\/p>'); return false;">Quote</a></div> I’d suggest you get beyond the black body radiation, hockey stick and Al Gore and read on, Rob.  He covers much more. The hockey stick is quite relevant because for years it was widely accepted without peer review, which speaks to the lemming quality of much AGW theory.  I don’t understand your comment about liberal or conservative - what do political positions have to do with science?  If it’s science, there should be no differentiation between conservative and liberal perceptions as is the case with, say, thermodynamics.

Reply - Quote
]]> By: Rob http://www.cheatseekingmissiles.com/2008/11/29/the-global-warming-hoax-and-what-to-do-about-it/#comment-2034 Rob Sat, 03 Jan 2009 06:33:36 +0000 http://www.cheatseekingmissiles.com/?p=6133#comment-2034 This article (the linked article by Peden) will certainly take some time to digest. My degree is in mathematics with a minor in chemistry, and since the degree is a B.S. (as opposed to a B.A.) it included 24 units of Physics. I'm a businessman though, and not a scientist. I'm also devoted to being objective. All that said, I've read the first several paragraphs and, unless the level of discourse (from a factual viewpoint) rises, I won't bother to finish it. Mr. Peden states that "This is called "black body" radiation, because a perfectly black body reflects no visible light but still emits radiation in a specified band of wavelengths." It's true that an ideal black body reflects no visible light. It neither reflects nor transmits ANY incoming electromagnetic radiation of any frequency/wavelength. It is a model for the behavior of an ideal radiator at a given temperature. Peden's tendency to dwell on the so-called "hockey stick" is a classic example of the straw man argument. Defeating it does nothing, no knowledgeable scientist rests any hypothesis on it. Regardless of whether he (or you) believes it or not, the AGW theory was around long before the hockey stick and is still around now. The same can be said for his harping on Al Gore. Scientists don't listen to him. Move on. He engages in repeated ad hominem attacks, these diminish his persuasiveness. I suggest sticking to factual arguments - those could use refinement. Finally, he claims to have no preset "conservative" or "liberal" viewpoint, this is obviously false. I do appreciate the link to the article.    <div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('2034','Rob'); return false;">Reply</a> - <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('2034','Rob','This article (the linked article by Peden) will certainly take some time to digest. My degree is in mathematics with a minor in chemistry, and since the degree is a B.S. (as opposed to a B.A.) it included 24 units of Physics. I\'m a businessman though, and not a scientist. I\'m also devoted to being objective.\r\nAll that said, I\'ve read the first several paragraphs and, unless the level of discourse (from a factual viewpoint) rises, I won\'t bother to finish it. Mr. Peden states that \"This is called \"black body\" radiation, because a perfectly black body reflects no visible light but still emits radiation in a specified band of wavelengths.\" It\'s true that an ideal black body reflects no visible light. It neither reflects nor transmits ANY incoming electromagnetic radiation of any frequency\/wavelength. It is a model for the behavior of an ideal radiator at a given temperature.\r\nPeden\'s tendency to dwell on the so-called \"hockey stick\" is a classic example of the straw man argument. Defeating it does nothing, no knowledgeable scientist rests any hypothesis on it. Regardless of whether he (or you) believes it or not, the AGW theory was around long before the hockey stick and is still around now. The same can be said for his harping on Al Gore. Scientists don\'t listen to him. Move on.\r\nHe engages in repeated ad hominem attacks, these diminish his persuasiveness. I suggest sticking to factual arguments - those could use refinement.\r\nFinally, he claims to have no preset \"conservative\" or \"liberal\" viewpoint, this is obviously false.\r\nI do appreciate the link to the article.\r\n \r\n '); return false;">Quote</a></div> This article (the linked article by Peden) will certainly take some time to digest. My degree is in mathematics with a minor in chemistry, and since the degree is a B.S. (as opposed to a B.A.) it included 24 units of Physics. I’m a businessman though, and not a scientist. I’m also devoted to being objective.
All that said, I’ve read the first several paragraphs and, unless the level of discourse (from a factual viewpoint) rises, I won’t bother to finish it. Mr. Peden states that “This is called “black body” radiation, because a perfectly black body reflects no visible light but still emits radiation in a specified band of wavelengths.” It’s true that an ideal black body reflects no visible light. It neither reflects nor transmits ANY incoming electromagnetic radiation of any frequency/wavelength. It is a model for the behavior of an ideal radiator at a given temperature.
Peden’s tendency to dwell on the so-called “hockey stick” is a classic example of the straw man argument. Defeating it does nothing, no knowledgeable scientist rests any hypothesis on it. Regardless of whether he (or you) believes it or not, the AGW theory was around long before the hockey stick and is still around now. The same can be said for his harping on Al Gore. Scientists don’t listen to him. Move on.
He engages in repeated ad hominem attacks, these diminish his persuasiveness. I suggest sticking to factual arguments - those could use refinement.
Finally, he claims to have no preset “conservative” or “liberal” viewpoint, this is obviously false.
I do appreciate the link to the article.
 
 
Reply - Quote
]]> By: dg http://www.cheatseekingmissiles.com/2008/11/29/the-global-warming-hoax-and-what-to-do-about-it/#comment-1875 dg Mon, 08 Dec 2008 18:41:34 +0000 http://www.cheatseekingmissiles.com/?p=6133#comment-1875 Please stop injecting faith into scientific method.  The only faith is that what is empirically observed is reality, which is a lot less faith than required by religion.  To miss this is to misunderstand science and the scientific method.  If this process was poorly applied in the case of Mann (the details of which I am not expert on to evaluate your questions), then that's unfortunate.  However, it will eventually be corrected, as it has been historically, since scientists are ultimately driven by data and analysis, not ideology or dogma.  That you continue to conflate faith-based sources of "truth" from rational, science-based ones only helps to prove my point about many Christians being anti-science or, at least, ignorant of it.<div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('1875','dg'); return false;">Reply</a> - <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('1875','dg','Please stop injecting faith into scientific method.  The only faith is that what is empirically observed is reality, which is a lot less faith than required by religion.  To miss this is to misunderstand science and the scientific method.  If this process was poorly applied in the case of Mann (the details of which I am not expert on to evaluate your questions), then that\'s unfortunate.  However, it will eventually be corrected, as it has been historically, since scientists are ultimately driven by data and analysis, not ideology or dogma.  That you continue to conflate faith-based sources of \"truth\" from rational, science-based ones only helps to prove my point about many Christians being anti-science or, at least, ignorant of it.'); return false;">Quote</a></div> Please stop injecting faith into scientific method.  The only faith is that what is empirically observed is reality, which is a lot less faith than required by religion.  To miss this is to misunderstand science and the scientific method.  If this process was poorly applied in the case of Mann (the details of which I am not expert on to evaluate your questions), then that’s unfortunate.  However, it will eventually be corrected, as it has been historically, since scientists are ultimately driven by data and analysis, not ideology or dogma.  That you continue to conflate faith-based sources of “truth” from rational, science-based ones only helps to prove my point about many Christians being anti-science or, at least, ignorant of it.
Reply - Quote
]]> By: Laer http://www.cheatseekingmissiles.com/2008/11/29/the-global-warming-hoax-and-what-to-do-about-it/#comment-1866 Laer Sun, 07 Dec 2008 19:14:30 +0000 http://www.cheatseekingmissiles.com/?p=6133#comment-1866 <p>On government funding, welcome to a new understanding.  Conservatives who are Christians have a conflict with embryonic stem cells and abortion.  The Conservaitve wants no government meddling; the Christians want no immoral taking of life.  Of course with us the Christian beliefs trump the Conservative, but many of us realize that our faith is OUR faith, so we don't try to stop people from entering abortion clinic.  Rather, we pray, we share and we hope taht in time people will gain the understanding we have - but the worst time to do this is on a barricade between a woman and the abortion she seeks.  God will take care of the child; the woman will take time, gentle influence and revelations.</p> <p>However, since it is our tax dollars, we protest government-funded abortion and government-funded embryonic stem cell research.  You are right that the stem cell research can lead to human loning, which is a very different matter than abortion, and I think we have the will of Congress on our side on this one, and that cloning will continue to be banned, both public-funded and private-funded.  I share all this because I think you oversimplify the complexity and elegance of our thoughts.</p> <p>Having read a lot of your comments over the last few months, I think I'm safe in saying that another difference between your belief system and mine is that you believe man can come to understand everything, and I believe that he never will, that some things are beyond his understanding.  Of course, this is a philosophical difference that neither of us can prove, but I can prove that you yourself are faith-driven:  "I do not “believe” in evolution or  global warming, but accept the current <strong>most established theories</strong> as long as <strong>they make logical sense</strong> and <strong>comport with the evidence that is currently available</strong> ...."  In other words, your proof can only go so far, after that, you have to take it on faith, based on your understanding of the world.  But sometimes your understanding is skewed because your faith in science overwhelms what science has actually done (there's a parallel in there with religion, eh?). Example:  You understated Mann's problems with the hockey stick.</p> <p>For starters, the original presentation in Nature was not peer reviewed.  Why not?  Why is it only for the northern hemisphere?  What data-gathering errors are involved in the "actual" temperatures (the blade)? Why are the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age missing? Why was Steve McIntyre able to show that no matter what data you put into Mann's model, the same errors always occured - the handle always came out straight?  Why did Nature refuse to publish McIntyre's work? (Not because it was too long - he cut it and Nature rejected it again.) Why did the National Academy of Sciences give the hockey stick graph "a validation skill not significantly different from zero (i.e., useless)?  Why do people still use it to support their belief in anthropomorphic global warming?  Why do people - you - still say only McIntyre disproved it when others (<a href="http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm" rel="nofollow">Ed Cook</a>, for example) did the same, using other data sets?</p> <p>Ultimately, why was Mann so thoroughly accepted by the global warming believers before it was subjected to rigorous scientific review?  Why did supposed believers in rigorous scientific review allow themselves to be swept away by Mann's star power, not his scientific work?</p><div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('1866','Laer'); return false;">Reply</a> - <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('1866','Laer','<p>On government funding, welcome to a new understanding.  Conservatives who are Christians have a conflict with embryonic stem cells and abortion.  The Conservaitve wants no government meddling; the Christians want no immoral taking of life.  Of course with us the Christian beliefs trump the Conservative, but many of us realize that our faith is OUR faith, so we don\'t try to stop people from entering abortion clinic.  Rather, we pray, we share and we hope taht in time people will gain the understanding we have - but the worst time to do this is on a barricade between a woman and the abortion she seeks.  God will take care of the child; the woman will take time, gentle influence and revelations.<\/p>\r\n<p>However, since it is our tax dollars, we protest government-funded abortion and government-funded embryonic stem cell research.  You are right that the stem cell research can lead to human loning, which is a very different matter than abortion, and I think we have the will of Congress on our side on this one, and that cloning will continue to be banned, both public-funded and private-funded.  I share all this because I think you oversimplify the complexity and elegance of our thoughts.<\/p>\r\n<p>Having read a lot of your comments over the last few months, I think I\'m safe in saying that another difference between your belief system and mine is that you believe man can come to understand everything, and I believe that he never will, that some things are beyond his understanding.  Of course, this is a philosophical difference that neither of us can prove, but I can prove that you yourself are faith-driven:  \"I do not âbelieveâ in evolution or  global warming, but accept the current <strong>most established theories<\/strong> as long as <strong>they make logical sense<\/strong> and <strong>comport with the evidence that is currently available<\/strong> ....\"  In other words, your proof can only go so far, after that, you have to take it on faith, based on your understanding of the world.  But sometimes your understanding is skewed because your faith in science overwhelms what science has actually done (there\'s a parallel in there with religion, eh?). Example:  You understated Mann\'s problems with the hockey stick.<\/p>\r\n<p>For starters, the original presentation in Nature was not peer reviewed.  Why not?  Why is it only for the northern hemisphere?  What data-gathering errors are involved in the \"actual\" temperatures (the blade)? Why are the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age missing? Why was Steve McIntyre able to show that no matter what data you put into Mann\'s model, the same errors always occured - the handle always came out straight?  Why did Nature refuse to publish McIntyre\'s work? (Not because it was too long - he cut it and Nature rejected it again.) Why did the National Academy of Sciences give the hockey stick graph \"a validation skill not significantly different from zero (i.e., useless)?  Why do people still use it to support their belief in anthropomorphic global warming?  Why do people - you - still say only McIntyre disproved it when others (<a href=\"http:\/\/www.john-daly.com\/hockey\/hockey.htm\" rel=\"nofollow\">Ed Cook<\/a>, for example) did the same, using other data sets?<\/p>\r\n<p>Ultimately, why was Mann so thoroughly accepted by the global warming believers before it was subjected to rigorous scientific review?  Why did supposed believers in rigorous scientific review allow themselves to be swept away by Mann\'s star power, not his scientific work?<\/p>'); return false;">Quote</a></div> On government funding, welcome to a new understanding.  Conservatives who are Christians have a conflict with embryonic stem cells and abortion.  The Conservaitve wants no government meddling; the Christians want no immoral taking of life.  Of course with us the Christian beliefs trump the Conservative, but many of us realize that our faith is OUR faith, so we don’t try to stop people from entering abortion clinic.  Rather, we pray, we share and we hope taht in time people will gain the understanding we have - but the worst time to do this is on a barricade between a woman and the abortion she seeks.  God will take care of the child; the woman will take time, gentle influence and revelations.

However, since it is our tax dollars, we protest government-funded abortion and government-funded embryonic stem cell research.  You are right that the stem cell research can lead to human loning, which is a very different matter than abortion, and I think we have the will of Congress on our side on this one, and that cloning will continue to be banned, both public-funded and private-funded.  I share all this because I think you oversimplify the complexity and elegance of our thoughts.

Having read a lot of your comments over the last few months, I think I’m safe in saying that another difference between your belief system and mine is that you believe man can come to understand everything, and I believe that he never will, that some things are beyond his understanding.  Of course, this is a philosophical difference that neither of us can prove, but I can prove that you yourself are faith-driven:  “I do not “believe” in evolution or  global warming, but accept the current most established theories as long as they make logical sense and comport with the evidence that is currently available ….”  In other words, your proof can only go so far, after that, you have to take it on faith, based on your understanding of the world.  But sometimes your understanding is skewed because your faith in science overwhelms what science has actually done (there’s a parallel in there with religion, eh?). Example:  You understated Mann’s problems with the hockey stick.

For starters, the original presentation in Nature was not peer reviewed.  Why not?  Why is it only for the northern hemisphere?  What data-gathering errors are involved in the “actual” temperatures (the blade)? Why are the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age missing? Why was Steve McIntyre able to show that no matter what data you put into Mann’s model, the same errors always occured - the handle always came out straight?  Why did Nature refuse to publish McIntyre’s work? (Not because it was too long - he cut it and Nature rejected it again.) Why did the National Academy of Sciences give the hockey stick graph “a validation skill not significantly different from zero (i.e., useless)?  Why do people still use it to support their belief in anthropomorphic global warming?  Why do people - you - still say only McIntyre disproved it when others (Ed Cook, for example) did the same, using other data sets?

Ultimately, why was Mann so thoroughly accepted by the global warming believers before it was subjected to rigorous scientific review?  Why did supposed believers in rigorous scientific review allow themselves to be swept away by Mann’s star power, not his scientific work?

Reply - Quote
]]> By: dg http://www.cheatseekingmissiles.com/2008/11/29/the-global-warming-hoax-and-what-to-do-about-it/#comment-1863 dg Sun, 07 Dec 2008 09:07:07 +0000 http://www.cheatseekingmissiles.com/?p=6133#comment-1863 Given your understanding of scientific method, I doubt you are in a position to judge whether evolution is a compelling theory or the equivalent of pre-Copernican theories of cosmology.  However, you are right that they do not disprove a creator, since it is analytically impossible to prove a negative--that God does not exist--which logicians have known for eons.  However, this is also true of such silly notions as fairies, big foot, Santa Clause or unicorns.                                                                                              The difference between you and me is that you think that scientists and religious folks "believe" in the same way, but in different things.  This is nonsense.  Scientists hold views and theories that will forever remain contingent upon a best-fit theory and the evidence known at the time.  I do not "believe" in evolution or  global warming, but accept the current most established theories as long as they make logical sense and comport with the evidence that is currently available and with the understanding that when they cease to make sense or fit the facts they will be jettisoned.  Religion does not do this.  What makes science unique is its contingent description of the world based upon the view that all knowledge is contingent.  This is quite different from your religious, faith-based worldview, which is immutable and is held independent of the evidence and often in spite of it.  This distinction is huge because it means that I don't need to wage a cultural war (as the conservatives constantly call for) or (worse) a religious one to determine whether I am right.  Rather, I can rely on empirical evidence and logical discourse.  And if the logic and evidence one day point to Jesus walking on water or Moses parting the Red Sea, then I can in fact adopt your views (unlike your ability to adopt mine).  More importantly perhaps is the fact that the scientific method is not only peaceful and dynamic but it is the source of all human progress.  The religious way remains stuck in the bronze (or dark?) age because it lacks a mechanism for improvement or progress.  The scientific side is continually refining terms and definitions in light of new evidence, while even the most like-minded religious folks cannot even precisely define their terms.  It striking to me that you hold yourself up as an intelligent and (presumably) well-educated person, yet you equate religious belief (which does preclude all other beliefs) with scientific knowledge (which is always open to challenge and remains forever contingent).  You really must study science more carefully in order to appreciate this difference.  E.O. Wilson has a wonderful chapter in his book, Consilience, on this crucial difference between the two sources of perceived human knowledge, science and faith.                                                                                                                Now, you also should not mix up liberals, secularists, hedonists and scientists.  Again, every group that is not evangelical Christian cannot be clumped together this way.  Many liberals take unscientific views on issues as well, while hedonists could be completely ignorant of the scientific risks of their behavior.  As for secularists, most scientists fall into this category because they understand that science only operates in the world of what can be observed, which is by definition the secular world.  They also understand that to step out of it and declare "God did it" is to explain absolutely nothing.                                                                                              As for the private funding of embryonic stem cell research, I really doubt what you say is true.  Using embryonic stem cells means that embryos that might otherwise be implanted to become babies (the Snowflake program that President Bush has touted) will be destroyed.  This is analytically identical to abortion, so either conservatives are only against abortion in cases in which the activity is publicly funding or you are wrong in your assertion or conservatives make distinctions without a difference in the case of abortions versus embryonic stem cell research.  You might want to check that claim, especially given the comments of conservative experts on the subject such as Dr. Stanton at the FRC.                                                                                                        Finally, I cite the politicians only because they so often (and almost always during campaigns) say exactly what their base wants to hear, thus reflecting the ideology of that base.  Katherine Harris is an evangelical who was readily reflecting what the Baptists and other evangelicals in Florida believe and expect their politicians to believe.  Hence, her words are actually a good indicator of the very same scientific fallacies and general hostility to science that her would-be constituency holds.  I don't cite it to win debate points, but as empirical evidence of a strong ideological tendency of anti-intellectualism and anti-science in that particular community.  There are thousands of such quotes that could be offered to make the same point with equal strength.<div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('1863','dg'); return false;">Reply</a> - <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('1863','dg','Given your understanding of scientific method, I doubt you are in a position to judge whether evolution is a compelling theory or the equivalent of pre-Copernican theories of cosmology.  However, you are right that they do not disprove a creator, since it is analytically impossible to prove a negative--that God does not exist--which logicians have known for eons.  However, this is also true of such silly notions as fairies, big foot, Santa Clause or unicorns.                                                                                              The difference between you and me is that you think that scientists and religious folks \"believe\" in the same way, but in different things.  This is nonsense.  Scientists hold views and theories that will forever remain contingent upon a best-fit theory and the evidence known at the time.  I do not \"believe\" in evolution or  global warming, but accept the current most established theories as long as they make logical sense and comport with the evidence that is currently available and with the understanding that when they cease to make sense or fit the facts they will be jettisoned.  Religion does not do this.  What makes science unique is its contingent description of the world based upon the view that all knowledge is contingent.  This is quite different from your religious, faith-based worldview, which is immutable and is held independent of the evidence and often in spite of it.  This distinction is huge because it means that I don\'t need to wage a cultural war (as the conservatives constantly call for) or (worse) a religious one to determine whether I am right.  Rather, I can rely on empirical evidence and logical discourse.  And if the logic and evidence one day point to Jesus walking on water or Moses parting the Red Sea, then I can in fact adopt your views (unlike your ability to adopt mine).  More importantly perhaps is the fact that the scientific method is not only peaceful and dynamic but it is the source of all human progress.  The religious way remains stuck in the bronze (or dark?) age because it lacks a mechanism for improvement or progress.  The scientific side is continually refining terms and definitions in light of new evidence, while even the most like-minded religious folks cannot even precisely define their terms.  It striking to me that you hold yourself up as an intelligent and (presumably) well-educated person, yet you equate religious belief (which does preclude all other beliefs) with scientific knowledge (which is always open to challenge and remains forever contingent).  You really must study science more carefully in order to appreciate this difference.  E.O. Wilson has a wonderful chapter in his book, Consilience, on this crucial difference between the two sources of perceived human knowledge, science and faith.                                                                                                                Now, you also should not mix up liberals, secularists, hedonists and scientists.  Again, every group that is not evangelical Christian cannot be clumped together this way.  Many liberals take unscientific views on issues as well, while hedonists could be completely ignorant of the scientific risks of their behavior.  As for secularists, most scientists fall into this category because they understand that science only operates in the world of what can be observed, which is by definition the secular world.  They also understand that to step out of it and declare \"God did it\" is to explain absolutely nothing.                                                                                              As for the private funding of embryonic stem cell research, I really doubt what you say is true.  Using embryonic stem cells means that embryos that might otherwise be implanted to become babies (the Snowflake program that President Bush has touted) will be destroyed.  This is analytically identical to abortion, so either conservatives are only against abortion in cases in which the activity is publicly funding or you are wrong in your assertion or conservatives make distinctions without a difference in the case of abortions versus embryonic stem cell research.  You might want to check that claim, especially given the comments of conservative experts on the subject such as Dr. Stanton at the FRC.                                                                                                        Finally, I cite the politicians only because they so often (and almost always during campaigns) say exactly what their base wants to hear, thus reflecting the ideology of that base.  Katherine Harris is an evangelical who was readily reflecting what the Baptists and other evangelicals in Florida believe and expect their politicians to believe.  Hence, her words are actually a good indicator of the very same scientific fallacies and general hostility to science that her would-be constituency holds.  I don\'t cite it to win debate points, but as empirical evidence of a strong ideological tendency of anti-intellectualism and anti-science in that particular community.  There are thousands of such quotes that could be offered to make the same point with equal strength.'); return false;">Quote</a></div> Given your understanding of scientific method, I doubt you are in a position to judge whether evolution is a compelling theory or the equivalent of pre-Copernican theories of cosmology.  However, you are right that they do not disprove a creator, since it is analytically impossible to prove a negative–that God does not exist–which logicians have known for eons.  However, this is also true of such silly notions as fairies, big foot, Santa Clause or unicorns.                                                                                              The difference between you and me is that you think that scientists and religious folks “believe” in the same way, but in different things.  This is nonsense.  Scientists hold views and theories that will forever remain contingent upon a best-fit theory and the evidence known at the time.  I do not “believe” in evolution or  global warming, but accept the current most established theories as long as they make logical sense and comport with the evidence that is currently available and with the understanding that when they cease to make sense or fit the facts they will be jettisoned.  Religion does not do this.  What makes science unique is its contingent description of the world based upon the view that all knowledge is contingent.  This is quite different from your religious, faith-based worldview, which is immutable and is held independent of the evidence and often in spite of it.  This distinction is huge because it means that I don’t need to wage a cultural war (as the conservatives constantly call for) or (worse) a religious one to determine whether I am right.  Rather, I can rely on empirical evidence and logical discourse.  And if the logic and evidence one day point to Jesus walking on water or Moses parting the Red Sea, then I can in fact adopt your views (unlike your ability to adopt mine).  More importantly perhaps is the fact that the scientific method is not only peaceful and dynamic but it is the source of all human progress.  The religious way remains stuck in the bronze (or dark?) age because it lacks a mechanism for improvement or progress.  The scientific side is continually refining terms and definitions in light of new evidence, while even the most like-minded religious folks cannot even precisely define their terms.  It striking to me that you hold yourself up as an intelligent and (presumably) well-educated person, yet you equate religious belief (which does preclude all other beliefs) with scientific knowledge (which is always open to challenge and remains forever contingent).  You really must study science more carefully in order to appreciate this difference.  E.O. Wilson has a wonderful chapter in his book, Consilience, on this crucial difference between the two sources of perceived human knowledge, science and faith.                                                                                                                Now, you also should not mix up liberals, secularists, hedonists and scientists.  Again, every group that is not evangelical Christian cannot be clumped together this way.  Many liberals take unscientific views on issues as well, while hedonists could be completely ignorant of the scientific risks of their behavior.  As for secularists, most scientists fall into this category because they understand that science only operates in the world of what can be observed, which is by definition the secular world.  They also understand that to step out of it and declare “God did it” is to explain absolutely nothing.                                                                                              As for the private funding of embryonic stem cell research, I really doubt what you say is true.  Using embryonic stem cells means that embryos that might otherwise be implanted to become babies (the Snowflake program that President Bush has touted) will be destroyed.  This is analytically identical to abortion, so either conservatives are only against abortion in cases in which the activity is publicly funding or you are wrong in your assertion or conservatives make distinctions without a difference in the case of abortions versus embryonic stem cell research.  You might want to check that claim, especially given the comments of conservative experts on the subject such as Dr. Stanton at the FRC.                                                                                                        Finally, I cite the politicians only because they so often (and almost always during campaigns) say exactly what their base wants to hear, thus reflecting the ideology of that base.  Katherine Harris is an evangelical who was readily reflecting what the Baptists and other evangelicals in Florida believe and expect their politicians to believe.  Hence, her words are actually a good indicator of the very same scientific fallacies and general hostility to science that her would-be constituency holds.  I don’t cite it to win debate points, but as empirical evidence of a strong ideological tendency of anti-intellectualism and anti-science in that particular community.  There are thousands of such quotes that could be offered to make the same point with equal strength.
Reply - Quote
]]> By: Laer http://www.cheatseekingmissiles.com/2008/11/29/the-global-warming-hoax-and-what-to-do-about-it/#comment-1858 Laer Fri, 05 Dec 2008 23:15:29 +0000 http://www.cheatseekingmissiles.com/?p=6133#comment-1858 I've read some of these elegant explanations of evolution and the remind me of pre-Copernician formulas explaining the solar system's rotation around the earth.  They are fine and dandy, for sure - but they neither prove evolution or disprove a divine creator. <em>"The greatest arrogance of evangelicals and other devout Christians is the idea that the only morality that is valid is their own."</em> - It is odd that you would expect anyone - Christian or secularist, liberal or conservative - to believe that those holding opposing views, or moralities, are valid in their beliefs/morality.  Do you believe my morality is valid?  Do you believe my beliefs are valid?  By definition, beliefs, be they religious or secular, preclude other beliefs.  You believe in global warming, so you hold that my beliefs are not valid.  You belive in gay marriage and embryonic stem cell reserach, so you believe that my morals are not valid.  By definition, Christian morals preclude hedonistic morals, and the other way around.  Still, I understand why liberals and secularists see their beliefs/morality as valid because I'm a recovered liberal secularist.  All good Christians understand this, because we start from the premise that all have fallen short of the Glory of God and are sinners.  I don't recall ever hearing the Christian defense of the anti-embryonic stem cell position as you stated it, i.e., "identical."  I have heard that adult stem cells provide great potential for breakthroughs and cures without the moral issues involved with fetal stem cells.  And I have NEVER heard a conservative Christian argue against privately funded research into embryonic stem cells; the argument only opposes our tax dollars going to fund research we find morally reprehensible.  Further, some conservative Christians support embryonic stem cell research with some protections, believing there is a moral argument in support.  The case you cite was a politician; I don't expect much from political rhetoric, but it was a good cite for your side, nonetheless.<div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('1858','Laer'); return false;">Reply</a> - <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('1858','Laer','I\'ve read some of these elegant explanations of evolution and the remind me of pre-Copernician formulas explaining the solar system\'s rotation around the earth.  They are fine and dandy, for sure - but they neither prove evolution or disprove a divine creator.\r\n\r\n<em>\"The greatest arrogance of evangelicals and other devout Christians is the idea that the only morality that is valid is their own.\"<\/em> - It is odd that you would expect anyone - Christian or secularist, liberal or conservative - to believe that those holding opposing views, or moralities, are valid in their beliefs\/morality.  Do you believe my morality is valid?  Do you believe my beliefs are valid?  By definition, beliefs, be they religious or secular, preclude other beliefs.  You believe in global warming, so you hold that my beliefs are not valid.  You belive in gay marriage and embryonic stem cell reserach, so you believe that my morals are not valid.  By definition, Christian morals preclude hedonistic morals, and the other way around.  Still, I understand why liberals and secularists see their beliefs\/morality as valid because I\'m a recovered liberal secularist.  All good Christians understand this, because we start from the premise that all have fallen short of the Glory of God and are sinners. \r\n\r\nI don\'t recall ever hearing the Christian defense of the anti-embryonic stem cell position as you stated it, i.e., \"identical.\"  I have heard that adult stem cells provide great potential for breakthroughs and cures without the moral issues involved with fetal stem cells.  And I have NEVER heard a conservative Christian argue against privately funded research into embryonic stem cells; the argument only opposes our tax dollars going to fund research we find morally reprehensible.  Further, some conservative Christians support embryonic stem cell research with some protections, believing there is a moral argument in support.  The case you cite was a politician; I don\'t expect much from political rhetoric, but it was a good cite for your side, nonetheless.'); return false;">Quote</a></div> I’ve read some of these elegant explanations of evolution and the remind me of pre-Copernician formulas explaining the solar system’s rotation around the earth.  They are fine and dandy, for sure - but they neither prove evolution or disprove a divine creator.

“The greatest arrogance of evangelicals and other devout Christians is the idea that the only morality that is valid is their own.” - It is odd that you would expect anyone - Christian or secularist, liberal or conservative - to believe that those holding opposing views, or moralities, are valid in their beliefs/morality.  Do you believe my morality is valid?  Do you believe my beliefs are valid?  By definition, beliefs, be they religious or secular, preclude other beliefs.  You believe in global warming, so you hold that my beliefs are not valid.  You belive in gay marriage and embryonic stem cell reserach, so you believe that my morals are not valid.  By definition, Christian morals preclude hedonistic morals, and the other way around.  Still, I understand why liberals and secularists see their beliefs/morality as valid because I’m a recovered liberal secularist.  All good Christians understand this, because we start from the premise that all have fallen short of the Glory of God and are sinners. 

I don’t recall ever hearing the Christian defense of the anti-embryonic stem cell position as you stated it, i.e., “identical.”  I have heard that adult stem cells provide great potential for breakthroughs and cures without the moral issues involved with fetal stem cells.  And I have NEVER heard a conservative Christian argue against privately funded research into embryonic stem cells; the argument only opposes our tax dollars going to fund research we find morally reprehensible.  Further, some conservative Christians support embryonic stem cell research with some protections, believing there is a moral argument in support.  The case you cite was a politician; I don’t expect much from political rhetoric, but it was a good cite for your side, nonetheless.

Reply - Quote
]]> By: dg http://www.cheatseekingmissiles.com/2008/11/29/the-global-warming-hoax-and-what-to-do-about-it/#comment-1857 dg Fri, 05 Dec 2008 22:53:16 +0000 http://www.cheatseekingmissiles.com/?p=6133#comment-1857 Laer, congrats on your IQ test.  So you should be able to follow the logic on evolution.  You are referring to a fallacious concept called irreducable complexity, which means that an eye or brain is too complicated to have come about randomly.  This is of course as wrong as it is intuitively seductive.  The reality is that we have mapped out clearly the genetic evolution of eyesight from amoeba's rudimentary sensitivity to light through the higher level animals (insects, birds, mammals, etc.).  There have been examples raised that have taken time to disprove, such as the Na-K ion channels that cause nerves to fire, but the intermediate step for this one was recently discovered.  Hence, the theory of evolution continues to hold up in explaining the most amazing inventions in nature, including our own brains.  You are more than welcome to believe in God, but you do not need that belief to explain eyes, brains, et. al.  As for the complexity or even existence of life, and the improbability of their arising, this idea as well is at odds with our understanding of cosmology, which recognizes that the sheer size of the universe is so large that the odds of life not existing elsewhere would be the improbable event.                                                                                                                                   Finally, you claim that I do not understand morality or faith, a claim that I would reject vehemently.  The reality is that I grew up in a Catholic household and did not lose my faith until my early 20s, so I understand what it means to have faith in the supernatural and the ideology of Christianity as developed by the oldest Christian church in human history.  As for morality, just because I don't share your morality does not mean I don't understand it.  The greatest arrogance of evangelicals and other devout Christians is the idea that the only morality that is valid is their own.  While I understand your moral view doesn't mean that I am immoral for holding slightly different views.                                                                                                         And by the way, I completely understand the moral arguments against using embryonic stem cells for research, and I have not stated my views on the issue; my prior comment was merely that religious conservatives have intentionally or mistakenly claimed that they are identical in terms of research value to adult stem cells, which is scientifically not true.  Each time that the unique research merits of embryonic stem cells was raised to the Bush Administration and conservative members of Congress, those right-wingers denied proven differences and denied the scientific promise of embryonic stem cells (For example, Katherine Harris a couple years ago said the following on the campaign:  "I'm the only candidate in the primary or general who's voted against embryonic stem cell research and has voted for cord blood research and adult stem cell research. ... There are no successes for embryonic. That is why the private sector is not involved and there is no justification for taking a live embryo and destroying it."  These comments are factually and scientifically incorrect.)  This is anti-science.  A more intelligent response would be to acknowledge the differences and promise of embryonic stem cells but then state the moral case against using them anyway.  I remain convinced that conservatives are anti-science, but perhaps they are just grossly ignorant of it--which unfortunately often leads to the same problems...<div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('1857','dg'); return false;">Reply</a> - <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('1857','dg','Laer, congrats on your IQ test.  So you should be able to follow the logic on evolution.  You are referring to a fallacious concept called irreducable complexity, which means that an eye or brain is too complicated to have come about randomly.  This is of course as wrong as it is intuitively seductive.  The reality is that we have mapped out clearly the genetic evolution of eyesight from amoeba\'s rudimentary sensitivity to light through the higher level animals (insects, birds, mammals, etc.).  There have been examples raised that have taken time to disprove, such as the Na-K ion channels that cause nerves to fire, but the intermediate step for this one was recently discovered.  Hence, the theory of evolution continues to hold up in explaining the most amazing inventions in nature, including our own brains.  You are more than welcome to believe in God, but you do not need that belief to explain eyes, brains, et. al.  As for the complexity or even existence of life, and the improbability of their arising, this idea as well is at odds with our understanding of cosmology, which recognizes that the sheer size of the universe is so large that the odds of life not existing elsewhere would be the improbable event.                                                                                                                                   Finally, you claim that I do not understand morality or faith, a claim that I would reject vehemently.  The reality is that I grew up in a Catholic household and did not lose my faith until my early 20s, so I understand what it means to have faith in the supernatural and the ideology of Christianity as developed by the oldest Christian church in human history.  As for morality, just because I don\'t share your morality does not mean I don\'t understand it.  The greatest arrogance of evangelicals and other devout Christians is the idea that the only morality that is valid is their own.  While I understand your moral view doesn\'t mean that I am immoral for holding slightly different views.                                                                                                         And by the way, I completely understand the moral arguments against using embryonic stem cells for research, and I have not stated my views on the issue; my prior comment was merely that religious conservatives have intentionally or mistakenly claimed that they are identical in terms of research value to adult stem cells, which is scientifically not true.  Each time that the unique research merits of embryonic stem cells was raised to the Bush Administration and conservative members of Congress, those right-wingers denied proven differences and denied the scientific promise of embryonic stem cells (For example, Katherine Harris a couple years ago said the following on the campaign:  \"I\'m the only candidate in the primary or general who\'s voted against embryonic stem cell research and has voted for cord blood research and adult stem cell research. ... There are no successes for embryonic. That is why the private sector is not involved and there is no justification for taking a live embryo and destroying it.\"  These comments are factually and scientifically incorrect.)  This is anti-science.  A more intelligent response would be to acknowledge the differences and promise of embryonic stem cells but then state the moral case against using them anyway.  I remain convinced that conservatives are anti-science, but perhaps they are just grossly ignorant of it--which unfortunately often leads to the same problems...'); return false;">Quote</a></div> Laer, congrats on your IQ test.  So you should be able to follow the logic on evolution.  You are referring to a fallacious concept called irreducable complexity, which means that an eye or brain is too complicated to have come about randomly.  This is of course as wrong as it is intuitively seductive.  The reality is that we have mapped out clearly the genetic evolution of eyesight from amoeba’s rudimentary sensitivity to light through the higher level animals (insects, birds, mammals, etc.).  There have been examples raised that have taken time to disprove, such as the Na-K ion channels that cause nerves to fire, but the intermediate step for this one was recently discovered.  Hence, the theory of evolution continues to hold up in explaining the most amazing inventions in nature, including our own brains.  You are more than welcome to believe in God, but you do not need that belief to explain eyes, brains, et. al.  As for the complexity or even existence of life, and the improbability of their arising, this idea as well is at odds with our understanding of cosmology, which recognizes that the sheer size of the universe is so large that the odds of life not existing elsewhere would be the improbable event.                                                                                                                                   Finally, you claim that I do not understand morality or faith, a claim that I would reject vehemently.  The reality is that I grew up in a Catholic household and did not lose my faith until my early 20s, so I understand what it means to have faith in the supernatural and the ideology of Christianity as developed by the oldest Christian church in human history.  As for morality, just because I don’t share your morality does not mean I don’t understand it.  The greatest arrogance of evangelicals and other devout Christians is the idea that the only morality that is valid is their own.  While I understand your moral view doesn’t mean that I am immoral for holding slightly different views.                                                                                                         And by the way, I completely understand the moral arguments against using embryonic stem cells for research, and I have not stated my views on the issue; my prior comment was merely that religious conservatives have intentionally or mistakenly claimed that they are identical in terms of research value to adult stem cells, which is scientifically not true.  Each time that the unique research merits of embryonic stem cells was raised to the Bush Administration and conservative members of Congress, those right-wingers denied proven differences and denied the scientific promise of embryonic stem cells (For example, Katherine Harris a couple years ago said the following on the campaign:  “I’m the only candidate in the primary or general who’s voted against embryonic stem cell research and has voted for cord blood research and adult stem cell research. … There are no successes for embryonic. That is why the private sector is not involved and there is no justification for taking a live embryo and destroying it.”  These comments are factually and scientifically incorrect.)  This is anti-science.  A more intelligent response would be to acknowledge the differences and promise of embryonic stem cells but then state the moral case against using them anyway.  I remain convinced that conservatives are anti-science, but perhaps they are just grossly ignorant of it–which unfortunately often leads to the same problems…
Reply - Quote
]]>