This looks interesting: a group of geologists have organized to write a book that specifically shows the fallacies of intelligent design creationism from a geological perspective. This should be good.
Pharyngula
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
I have to say that it doesn’t really explain what they’re doing in the book. Paleontology does, of course, show how ID is nonsense, with “poorly designed” intermediates like Archaeopteryx, and both geology and paleontology indicate that earth during the Permian seemed mostly designed to destroy much life.
But at its most minimal claims, ID doesn’t directly attack geology or the fossil record. So I’m wondering what they’re actually covering in the book.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
Very interesting. We’ll certainly purchase a copy.
You can count on geologists to get their hands dirty when necessity requires. Good for them.
Seconded on Glenn’s puzzlement. Also, that Shermer quote makes me cringe for simplistically passing over fifty-some years of earth science prior to 1859. If we have to choose a singular event and person to credit with sounding the death-knell of flood geology, surely it would be the publication of Lyell’s Principles in 1830&ff (and even that is the end of a process beginning c. 1800, with many contributors).
That’s cool. If I were a geologist, I’d definitely be annoyed that the creationists focus all of their attention on the biologists.
Yeah, but ID, like any tumour, tends to metastatise rather than stay minimal. The creationist beast within has no compunction about attacking geology: witness Graham Hancock’s moronophilic dreck Fingerprints of the Gods. Actually, creationism has to attack geology–most of our knowledge about the history of life comes from biology and geology working hand-in-hand.
I’m glad to see them joining the fray.
I wonder how many creationist geologists work for oil companies. Does their “knowledge” help those companies make any money?
Any clubbing these ignoramuses get upside their wilfully-ignorant heads is welcome, of course. But hasn’t Donald Prothero already covered a lot of this ground? Admittedly, he did so IIRC mostly from the space where geology and biology abut (fossils etc.). But as Glen points out, ID creationists (unlike “flood geologists” and the like) don’t generally question the scientific consensus on taphonomy, dating techniques etc., let alone plate tectonics. (In fact many of them purport to accept much of the biological consensus, they merely insist that the sciency stuff only works because of magic.)
Of course, in many ways the YE creationists are more consistent and intellectually honest than their ID creationist cousins. Though ID creationists insist only on voodoo biology, their claims of accepting non-voodoo geology, astronomy, physics etc. are merely a pretentious pose. Once you start appealling to magic to explain nature, you have moved irretrievably out of the world of science and into the world of (at best) storytelling.
In for a penny, in for a pound, I say; if you’re offering magic as an explanation of nature, dressing up in a lab coat and posing with an Erlenmeyer flask in your hand just makes you look silly. Might as well go the whole hog and head off for Ararat to find the wreckage of the Ark.
I’m sure this one will convince them.
True–ID itself doesn’t usually bother talking about geology. However, the larger creationist movement is very invested in proclaiming that sedimentary rocks were all deposited in a single Noachian flood. This of course, is easy to disprove. I hope the book does so eloquently, and that it will open people’s eyes to the incredible epic of Earth’s history.
OTP but how is this for unadulterated POE?
Textbook disclaimer
TOH to the Curmudgeon.
Geologist version of The God Delusion. This will most likely be written in a dumbed-down style, approachable by non scientist and non geology types.
This will result in a much wider audience but will require ongoing clarifications as the IDiots try to pick it apart because of it’s very approachability. Watch and see the IDiots argue that it lacks some perceived nuance of ‘science’ that they perceive as necessary to slip in their lunatic viewpoints.
Enjoy.
I can see such a book being a reference for non-idiots to confront assertions by dumbass, but since the woo-mongers won’t be reading it* anyway, how is this book going to be more helpful than, say, talk.origins?
Not just-sayin’ – I’m legitimately curious.
*or comprehending it even if they do allow photons from it to enter their eyeballs, eventually to be transduced into action potentials, presumably as a pseudo-mental process.
It’s a funny paradox Dave, that two significant oil-producing regions in North America, Texas and Alberta, have high concentrations of creationists, when the methods by which we identify and locate oil deposits require a definitively non-creationist understanding of earth processes. (Having studied with a number of geologists–and by ‘studied’, I mean regularly gotten wasted, I can say there were few of them that weren’t openly atheist.)
#11
This is just insane.
No doubt a great effort,and a good book to have available.
But if the general level of the argument on the side of the creationists is “satan put the fossils there to fool us”,then you can probably forget about having a rational discussion with them about any geological facts.
Biology does, of course, show how ID is nonsense, with “poorly designed” intermediates like Homo sapiens.
Sorry, Glen, I couldn’t resist.
Eamon Knight @#4
Had Darwin not had a copy of Lyell’s Principles with him on board the Beagle, the date 1859 would hold no significance to us now.
-That is a quote from the book. I am interested in finding out how geology refutes ID and creationism in general. That sounds interesting.
But they hire geologists from other states. I was approached to work in Houston because I was in Geophysics, there was no way I ever wanted to work there.
Well now, 12 years later I’ve lived here for too long to remember (working in a Library?!)
There maybe plenty creationists down here in Texas, but those I’ve met in Oil Exploration who graduated from Rice or outside state colleges are far from fundies. After all, they all know where oil comes from and why we find it where we do (or hope to.)
Now you can find GW-Denialism heavily from those in Oil Exploration down here.
Poor wording IMO.
For the Rock Record is dedicated to the proposition that entertaining the
ideafallacy of intelligent design ideas should be of serious concern to everyone.The ID movement is organized and perpetuated by a small mob of disenfranchised
sciencewannabescon men looking for a way to depose scientific inquiry and sell their snake oil. The claims of ID are ridiculous – read Jones from Dover – his statements said everything that needed to be said. Elevating it to dangerous status, IMO, is over stating its relevance. What’s dangerous are the con men’s efforts to legislate ID into scientific discussion and science classrooms.Keep things in perspective.
I think an attack on creationism from geologists is fantastic and the idea that they seem to implant the words ‘intelligent design’ to represent creationism is purely brilliant. Doesn’t get any more blunt than that. Perhaps more books should flip back and forth between those terms to be sure that the general public gets it.
As far as the overall idea of geologists attacking creationism… it’s about fucking time!
I thought they were hanging poor Don Prothero out to dry.
Go get ’em boys and girls!!
And I should add – not only oil companies, but mining companies like phelps dodge, bhp, etc. How many creationist geologists have anything to do with some of the humongous mining projects I’ve seen in the west – AZ and elsewhere.
I just have a question: where does the term “woo” (in relation to religidiocy) come from?
If this book turns out to be any good, I plan on giving it to my dad. He is a retired professor (Wheaton, Baylor, Colorado School of Mines, University of Denver), with PhD’s in both geology and chemistry. Oh, and he’s also a YEC (Baptist-cum-Nazarene) and an AGW denier who used to do work in oil shale, and has been to the “holy land” and Ararat several times with various other members of my family.
I can pretty much guarantee that nothing will change his mind about teh Jebus, but it will be good for a laugh.
Any and every scientific discipline should do likewise especially to focus the text on ID claims within that sphere of science! Whether few or imaginary claims those attacks are the drip drip of toxic delusional memes…
For once all of the Sciences should wake up to the debate and work together to put this turkey of a dogma out of it’s misery!
It is not enough to duck and mutter ‘nowt to do with our neck of the scientifical woods’…
Why should the Evolutionary disciplines take all the flack from the IDiots?
They will not pass…for sure…but the damage and doubt these sustained and hysterical rantings engender in the public eye has got to be eradicated for the sake of reality and reason…
Every claim from the ID camp has to be addressed and dispatched with scientific accuracy…leaving that to the odd worker in the field to take the brunt is not fair…Prof Ken Miller did a great job in Discover magazine to rebut the Luskin nonsense…blew Behe out of the water long before…but every publication that carries science must report the rebuttal otherwise those same claims are raised again and again.
Simply because folks in the general public have not heard or read the rebuttal…which is what the IDiots gamble on…their audience is the swing voters…if the swing voters do not hear the truth of the ID claims they win by default…
The point of ID/Creationism is to introduce a ‘godwotdidit’ into the general psych…Evolutionary theory is the rather large bumble bee in their ointment…but they use other disciplines to try and undermine evolution…
Geology is the next one down their tacky little list…they love barking about radio metric dating being inaccurate…or flood geology whatever!
Biology by default they link to Evolution …
Chemistry must wade in here…in defence of its sister discipline…Physics cannot remain aloof either…nor can cosmology or Astro-physics..they must all rally to this nonsense…not to and retain the status quo will just encourage this vermin to nibble…
And it will the the kids and future generations of kids that will suffer for it…this deference to nonsense has got to be called quits…it is not healthy for mankind simple like so!
Some of you really have turned AGW into a religion of your own. Calling it “denialism” is about the same as equating actual scientific research to “holocaust deniers.” This is because it’s more important to some of you to appeal to emotion and push a political agenda than it is to actually study the science.
It’s a shame that you vaunt the sciences, but ignore anything contrary to your political beliefs. There are plenty of good scientists that do not agree that the Earth is warming due to human influence. Just because their work is rarely funded by the U.S. Government and it’s not popular with the political left does not mean they’re wrong.
Many scientists have faced stiff opposition from the establishment when their theories were published. Some of those ideas have become among the most valuable contributions to science.
Gilbert N. Lewis was ridiculed by the establishment when he suggested that molecules can actually share electrons covalently. Now, it’s common knowledge to every high school chemistry student.
Charles Darwin’s Theory of Evolution still faces ridicule today by people acting just like you are.
Merriam Webster’s definiton of atheist used to be “One who denies the existence of God.” This language, of course, angered many atheists and rightly so. It was meant to imply that there is actually evidence of deities and that atheists merely reject that evidence. Think about that.
After looking at the data myself and reading a lot on the subject, I’m convinced that AGW is a sham that merely lives on as a tool to get liberals elected. I understand that you may like it, and that the idea of saving the planet is popular, but it’s just not good science. Nowadays support for it is merely an appeal to popularity.
#7: I wonder how many creationist geologists work for oil companies. Does their “knowledge” help those companies make any money?
Google up Glenn Morton. He *was* a YEC when he *started* working in the oil biz.
#18: Had Darwin not had a copy of Lyell’s Principles with him on board the Beagle, the date 1859 would hold no significance to us now.
Possibly not — but that part of the credit still goes to Lyell. I find Shermer’s statement somewhat confused. (Granted, Darwin also did some geo-sleuthing while on his world cruise; eg. his observations re. sea-level in Chile in the Voyage.
It would be nice if copies of this soon to be published book were made available at Grand Canyon gift shops.
I imagine it’s probably been around for a very long time. I suspect that it was probably popularized by James Randi, whom has used it routinely to descibe supernatural nonsense for ages.
Curiously, the amount of ridicule one undergoes has nothing to do with whether one’s position is actually true. For every Lewis and Darwin, there are thousands of crackpots.
My initial gut reaction is that it makes me a bit sad that a book like this even needs to be written — the very essence of the science of geology makes creationist ‘ideas’ about Earth history and processes laughable — but then I remember that it’s not really for other geologists like me, but for non-scientist people who are genuinely interested in these topics. I look forward to reading it, let’s hope it’s good.
That’s exactly the point I was trying to make.
Crackpots are one thing, scientists that have reviewed the evidence and come to different conclusions are another. If Al Gore didn’t go flying around the world screaming shrilly about AGW, it might actually remain an actual scientific debate where it currently belongs.
He’s recently been caught on tape claiming that the entire North polar ice cap is going to disappear in five years. Is this a man we really should be listening to? When South Park made fun of him with the ManBearPig episode, I laughed, but I didn’t really think he was guilty of much more than believing that correlation implies causation and manipulating some scientific graphs (such as omitting scale and units). I believed he was merely ignorant.
Now I am fully convinced that he is, indeed, a wackaloon of the worst kind. His “predictions” become more dire each year.
We’re talking about CO2 here, a gas that makes up 0.0384% of the Earth’s atmosphere. Only 3% of that is produced by human activity. That’s a really small amount of gas, in the grand scheme of things, and Gore really believes that the North polar ice cap will completely melt in 5 years due to that.
Just to make this perfectly clear, I am no interesting in Ward’s Galileo Complex.
Awesome, I completely fucked up the grammar in post 34.
Just to make this perfectly clear, I am no way interested in Ward’s Galileo Complex.
Eamon Knight @#28
I refer not to Lyell’s inspiration to motivate young Darwin to do some geo-sleuthing during shore leave, but instead his contribution to Darwin’s thought processes. Lyell introduced Darwin to the concepts of geologic time and gradualism, how infinitesimally small variations can accumulate over incomprehensibly long periods of time to add up to major change.
“Having studied with a number of geologists–and by ‘studied’, I mean regularly gotten wasted, I can say there were few of them that weren’t openly atheist.”
For when you gaze into the rocks, you gaze into the abyss, and from there, only madness can follow. MADNESS!
“I just have a question: where does the term “woo” (in relation to religidiocy) come from?”
My understanding is that it comes from the common denotion of supernatural elements by waving ones hands about and saying “WooOOOOoooo!” in a manner suggesting wailing ghosts or a theremin from a ’50s B-movie.
Mr. Galileo Gambit:
“and push a political agenda”
What political agenda? Please describe in detail the ulterior motive behind global warming. Explain how developing sustainable energy resources and curbing pollution is a bad thing. And for an encore, explain how it is a more compelling motive for evil scientists than covering up evidence of global warming in order to reap oil profits.
Eric,
I’m disappointed. Is an ad hominem the best you can offer? Can you only argue that there’s something wrong with the man making the point, and disregard the point entirely?
My point was not that “the minority opinion is always right” like you seem to be implying. It’s that the popularity of an idea is no substitute for actual evidence in its favor. If there is evidence against a particular theory, then scientific debate has not ended on it. AGW is a scientific theory, and because of that it is falsifiable.
Some of cultishly disregard the last point, wrecking your credibility as the “supporters of science” you claim to be.
The amount being small does not mean it can not or does not have an effect.
Try taking one nanogram/KG of botulinal neurotoxin
grr
that should have read
1 nanogram per KG body weight
That’s nice Ward, until you can explain to me why radiative forcing is wrong I’ll just continue to ignore you. Especially when you make an off-topic rant as the post was about geology and has nothing to do with climate change.
C’mon, Ward, you started the ad hominem. The burden of proof’s on you, you know. If greenhouse gases of human origin aren’t causing the quickly accelerating warming of the atmosphere, what, pray tell, is? Pretty much everything else has been the same for he last 100-150 years — solar radiation, volcanic activity, distance to the sun, and so on. What is there (with a well-established causal explanation like that for greenhouse gases) that’s causing this? Here — I’ll help. Go ahead and choose from this link — http://www.scq.ubc.ca/other-possible-causes-of-global-warming-a-literature-review/ Which one do you pick?
Others may enjoy the survey above as well.
And I’d like to hear your cogent answers to Rey Fox’s questions, too, Ward. You’re the one throwing around “ad hominem” claims that we’re all politically motivated, etc. How about some evidence for that stuff? Huh?
This is mostly a straw man argument. It’s intentionally putting words in my mouth and arguing against them. I’ll try, despite the fact that it’s obvious baiting.
Please describe in detail the ulterior motive behind global warming.
I contend that the actual science behind it is still contested and that it’s a scientific debate. There is a secondary motive to the use of it: It’s an appeal to fear. This can be (and is) used as a form of political propaganda used to convince people to vote for Democrats.
The idea is really no different than a similar appeal to fear: the fear of terrorism. This can get people to vote for Republicans. We both can agree that the Bush used this successfully to get re-elected. The skeletons in his closet certainly aren’t mine, I didn’t vote for him.
Explain how developing sustainable energy resources and curbing pollution is a bad thing.
Sustainable, renewable energy is a fantastic thing if it can be done cheaply enough that it wouldn’t wreck our economy to rely solely on it. Curbing pollution is also a wonderful goal, and I think we should all work toward it. There are plenty of reasons to “go green,” but I contend that climate change alarmism is not one of them.
Only in the most hardened mind of a political shill can we call Carbon Dioxide pollution. Most living things rely on CO2 in some way, whether by using it for energy (plants) or consuming things that use it for energy. We owe our very existence to Water, Oxygen, our sun, and yes CO2.
And for an encore, explain how it is a more compelling motive for evil scientists than covering up evidence of global warming in order to reap oil profits.
Scientists aren’t evil, but sometimes they’re just dead wrong on some things. Plus, there’s a lot of grant money that otherwise would not be awarded to them were it not for researching under the context of AGW. Whether a scientist is exploiting this intentionally or not is up to their own code of ethics.
Try getting science funded that goes against the mainstream on AGW and you’ll find your prospects slim.
As for “oil profits,” the only scientists that really make any money from oil companies are geologists. They want to maximize profits and funding science that’s not directly applicable isn’t a particularly effective way to do that.
Face it, almost our entire energy infrastructure is based off of fossil fuels. Their reasoning behind not funding climate research is obvious: they’re pretty much immune from any real economic harm because they’re needed, and any scientist that even accepts a small grant to study climate is going to have his results (and reputation) subjected to a trial by media. So, to them, what’s the point in wasting the money?
Besides, the last bit sounds suspiciously like an argument against capitalism rather than one against pollution. It veers so dangerously close that you might want to adjust your argument if you want to continue a dialog with me (a Libertarian and a believer in capitalism and free markets).
The book looks good, I’d like to have a read of it.
Part of the problem is that there is little or no geology (or Earth Science) taught in the public schools, and Introductory Geology is often seen as the “easy” science taken to fulfill course requirements. It’s no wonder people believe cavemen rode about on the backs of dinosaurs, ground water flows in a huge underground river from Lake Erie to Chesapeake Bay, and “global warming” is just part of a commie conspiracy.
“It’s intentionally putting words in my mouth and arguing against them.”
No, I’m afraid not. You said there was a political motivation behind global warming. That there was some ulterior motive behind trumping it up. Denialists are always saying that it’s a giant conspiracy in order to keep Al Gore in speaking fees and jet trips, I don’t believe it myself.
“There is a secondary motive to the use of it: It’s an appeal to fear. This can be (and is) used as a form of political propaganda used to convince people to vote for Democrats.”
There are other political parties in the world, you know.
“Only in the most hardened mind of a political shill”
There goes that “political” accusation again.
can we call Carbon Dioxide pollution. Most living things rely on CO2 in some way, whether by using it for energy (plants) or consuming things that use it for energy. We owe our very existence to Water, Oxygen, our sun, and yes CO2.”
Yes, but too much of any of those things is bad for us. Only the most hardened political shill would disagree with that. And it’s not as if CO2 is the only pollutant expelled by automobiles and factories and such, it’s not even the only greenhouse gas.
“Sustainable, renewable energy is a fantastic thing if it can be done cheaply enough that it wouldn’t wreck our economy to rely solely on it.”
Who is to say we couldn’t carefully wean our economy off fossil fuels if it turned out that there would be huge ecological consequences if we didn’t?
“Plus, there’s a lot of grant money that otherwise would not be awarded to them were it not for researching under the context of AGW.”
Ah yes. Grant money. Scientists living high on the hog from “grant money”.
“Face it, almost our entire energy infrastructure is based off of fossil fuels. Their reasoning behind not funding climate research is obvious”
I’ll say it’s obvious. They don’t want any knowledge coming out of climate research that might threaten their profits. And anyway, it’s not like they need to fund actual research, just a few shills against global warming is all they need, and maybe a thin veneer of science over top of it. Buying a senator or two also helps.
“Besides, the last bit sounds suspiciously like an argument against capitalism rather than one against pollution. It veers so dangerously close that you might want to adjust your argument if you want to continue a dialog with me (a Libertarian and a believer in capitalism and free markets).”
Oh, okay. Free markets solve everything…argument adjusted. Would hate for you to have to deign to talk to some sort of dirty communist.
Ah, that Ward, big on politics himself (COtwo not a pollutant, hehe — just stand in room with 100% COtwo, Ward and learn that a pollutant is anything that’s producing a bad result at the time, even if it doesn’t always) but not so hot on science. C’mon Ward, what’s changed since that warming began that’s causing the warming, if not greenhouse gases??? What is it, Mrs. Price’s oven?? http://www.scq.ubc.ca/other-possible-causes-of-global-warming-a-literature-review/
How? I mocked Al Gore’s position that the North polar ice caps are going to be completely gone in 5 years. That is a position that no self-respecting scientist would hold. It’s irrational, and worse, insane. It’s, quite honestly, not worth the time to address. It’s like arguing with a creationist or a scientologist and, on this, I’m going to pick my battles.
Actually, the common idiom is that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” The claim that we’re headed toward a climate apocalypse is certainly an extraordinary claim if I ever heard one. In fact, it’s virtually identical to the claim that we’re headed toward biblical Armageddon.
As for what’s causing the Earth to warm, who knows? We know so little about our planet’s climate that any theories regarding it are far closer to the colloquial meaning of “theory” than the scientific. Climate models have not been able to even predict the past with known data. This is the quality of science that AGW supporters are putting so much stock in. If you can’t put data into an theoretical equation that you already know the answer to and get the expected answer, the equation is probably wrong.
Actually, these claims are patently false. The sun undergoes a lot of fluctuation during the solar cycle. We can’t see a lot of it because quite a lot of radiation is invisible (infrared, ultraviolet, x-rays and so on). The lay person does not observe this, but scientific instruments can.
This isn’t worth the time to respond to. I’ll give you that it’s somewhat funny, but completely unscientific and, therefore, not germane to the discussion.
Yes, but too much of any of those things is bad for us. Only the most hardened political shill would disagree with that.
Wrong. Nobody calls food a pollutant, yet too much of it is certainly a bad thing.
We tend to reserve the term “pollution” for chemicals that are have almost universally negative effects on living organisms. Water is not generally called a “pollutant” except in the rare cases we’re talking about “thermal pollution” which is more about heat than the water that carries it.
Indeed, who is to say that? It certianly wasn’t me.
I didn’t imply that, either. Grant money is controlled by political interests and if you don’t believe that, why isn’t stem cell research being funded? Besides, with the costs most scientists incur when buying equipment, paying research assistants and post-docs, what they’re often left with as take-home pay can only by a stretch of the imagination be called “living high on the hog.”
Climate research doesn’t threaten their profits. It’s economic suicide to actually follow the proposals that AGW have made.
If you’re claiming that corporations are all “conspiring” to profit from their work, then that’s exactly true. You got me. On the other hand, if you’re claiming that they’re buying scientists to do bad research (hard to believe) and politicians (a little easier), then you’d do well to actually, you know, present some evidence of that.
Ah, putting more words in my mouth. Free markets do not solve everything, but that is no argument that oil companies or any other profitable industry is inherently evil, and that they are illegally conspiring to protect themselves, which does appear to be what you are saying. This comment only strengthens the evidence that what you’re really against is profit.
Good day, sir.
Ward @44,
I’ll try, despite the fact that it’s obvious baiting
No, you’re wrong there. “Baiting” implies that people are trying to draw you out, as though we were interested in listening to you rehash your tiresome crank theorising.
Really, though, what we’d like is for you to blow it out your arse someplace far from here. Surely there is some web meetingplace frequented by flat-earthers, HIV denialists, fake-moon-landing conspiracy theorists and Iain Murray. Why don’t you find it, and irritate those people with your maunderings (and be irritated by theirs; you deserve each other).
What I’m against is corporations making profits (which mostly means the few people at the top becoming obscenely rich) at the expense of the rest of the world.
“Besides, with the costs most scientists incur when buying equipment, paying research assistants and post-docs, what they’re often left with as take-home pay can only by a stretch of the imagination be called “living high on the hog.””
My point exactly. Your claim seems to be that AGW is blown out of proportion. That it’s not good science. Well, there wouldn’t be such a movement of bad science unless some entrenched institutions are somehow benefitting from it. So who stands to benefit? We’ve just ruled out the scientists, so who else does? Some politicians? There is a much clearer profit motive on the denialism side.
“On the other hand, if you’re claiming that they’re buying scientists to do bad research (hard to believe)”
Why? All they really need is a “think tank” or two. It was easy enough for the tobacco companies.
“and politicians (a little easier), then you’d do well to actually, you know, present some evidence of that.”
Seeing as how you derailed the thread in the first place, I’d like to see some evidence behind this statement: “Try getting science funded that goes against the mainstream on AGW and you’ll find your prospects slim.”
As a geologist in Greensboro, NC, I can tell you that there are plenty of creationist geologists out there who desperately need to read this book.
At my very liberal arts college, we had only 9 geology majors and somehow 3 of them were creationists. My favorite was the one who wrote his exams(that I used to have to grade *grits teeth*) like this:
5. What is the approximate age of the earth?
The “correct” answer to this question is 4.6 billion years old. (However, those of us who know the truth of the Holy Bible understand that the true age of the earth is really 6,000 years.)
He would do this for EVERY FUCKING QUESTION. But because he put down the right answers he got credit. THIS GUY HAS THE SAME DEGREE IN GEOLOGY AS ME! This fact makes me so sad when I think about it…
I had the feeling that he was majoring in geology just so he could be that guy who could say “Well, I’m a geologist and I know the earth is 6,000 years old.”
What I meant by using the term is closer to the Merriam-Webster’s definition for it:
1 a: to persecute or exasperate with unjust, malicious, or persistent attacks
The attempt is aimed at making me angry or exasperating me into losing my cool and attacking back. I’m not about to do that. I’m still maintaining that, politics aside, the theory of AGW is a scientific debate that isn’t closed and that there is mounting evidence that it’s simply false. You can’t just wave your hands, declare “consensus” and declare that all debate has ended. There are many thousands of scientists that contest the “consensus” argument. Even if it were, consensus opinion is not part of the scientific method. In fact, it encourages falsifiability.
As for the rest of your comments, you are doing exactly the same. I guess that ad hominem attacks are the equivalent of a logical argument to you.
My mere presence must offend you, for that I apologize. I wasn’t aware that dissenting scientific opinion isn’t allowed here.
Good day.
“As for what’s causing the Earth to warm, who knows?”
Well, Ward, almost every reputable science organization in the country, many large corporations including oil producers, and just about anybody else who pays attention, that’s who. All you’ve just proved is that you don’t care a whit about science. There’s a scientific explanation for how the increase in greenhouse gases is causing global warming, and immense amounts of evidence supporting it. I say that trumps “who knows” every time. You’ve got an obligation at least to propose some alternate hypothesis before you jettison the one that climate scientists the world over accept.
If you aren’t going even to engage in scientific debate, then there’s no reason at all to listen to you. Bye.
Ward, don’t you think you are being a bit hard on the agw “believers?”
Of course if you’re right, there’s nothing to worry about. Buy that beachfront property, drive to it in your H3, and chill out.
Some politicians? An entire political party stands to gain if they can maintain that they exist to save the world. As for the other side, you still have to present some evidence that what you’re saying is happening.
Public opinion on AGW is pretty clear, and the Democrats fill seats with it. This is an obvious trend, do you deny it?
Political power is far greater than mere money.
That’s a fine argument, were there any evidence for it. Prove it.
Actually, refer to post 25 where “AGW denial” was lumped in with all kinds of woo. The fact that several of you responded led to the derail. All I’m doing now is defending my argument.
Our country spends about $4 billion annually on AGW research. That’s an awful lot of money from our nation’s science budget to spend on one area of research, isn’t it?
Another fucking libertoonian whining that AGW can’t be true. I’d really like it if the liberwackaloons would be honest and admit that their objection to AGW is economic and political rather than scientific. But since “honest libertarian” is an oxymoron, I’m not holding my breath that W. S. Denker will acknowledge that he’s an AGW denialist because he might have to change his lifestyle because of AGW.
Ward, let me just try to be clear, so maybe you’ll understand. You can’t just try to refute the science behind global warming by saying maybe the scientists are biased ’cause they’re liberal, or maybe Al Gore is just making a good living at scaring people. You actually have to show they’re wrong, and that some mechanism other than greenhouse gases is likely, or at least possibly, responsible for the warming. But no scientist, and certainly not you, has done this. So you’re really not worth listening to.
Remember Ward, liberals can be right about science, even if you don’t like it. And just because you’re conservative gives you no credibility in the science community unless you can show you’re right. Them’s the rules, like it or not.
Now I really am gone.
This is a patently untrue claim. Science does not work that way. A theory is falsifiable on its own merit (or lack thereof). It does not have to be replaced to be falsified. An appeal to popularity or to authority is not going to convince me either. Evidence will.
Science also does not get into the business of proving a negative. I’ve looked at evidence from both sides of the debate and I have concluded that the evidence is not enough in favor of the theory of AGW to conclude that scientific debate should be ended. Claiming that debate should end on any scientific topic is also patently unscientific.
There are many great questions in science that remain to be answered. Admitting that we don’t know is what science is all about. Claiming that we have perfect understanding of climate when we have a hard time predicting the weather is a little too hard for me to swallow.
I’m sorry if my position offends you. The whole point I was trying to make is that it’s an unfair characterization to call us “AGW deniers” disparagingly and to lump it in with woo. There’s scientific debate on that subject. To equate it to woo would mean that there is no way to scientifically test the claims and, therefore, it’s not within the purview of science to discuss it.
All the venom and hate you send my way on that account will never change that. Neither the theory of AGW, nor scientific opposition to it qualify as woo. Hopefully that will clarify this and end the unilateral anger toward me.
I understand that you don’t like me or any Libertarians because of my political philosophy. I don’t particularly understand why. Being a Libertarian among a group of people with a heavily liberal viewpoint feels like being black at a KKK rally. It’s like being an atheist at a revivalist meet-up. There’s so much hatred, and most of it is unilateral.
It might surprise you that being a Libertarian, for me (I cannot speak for others, though I suspect most of us reject indoctrination on principle), has nothing at all to do with my stance on AGW.
Also, if solar (as an example) were cost competitive (cheap enough) and provided the energy density of fossil fuels I’d be on board 100%. We both know that it does not currently meet those criteria. I’d love to be energy independent – that fits more with my Libertarianism than having to shell out a lot of money for energy as it is. The only competitive alternative I can see to fossil fuels is nuclear, and that’s severely limited by the “not in my backyard” crowd.
I have, and will continue to make changes in my life to reduce my impact on the environment. That doesn’t have a thing to do with AGW alarmism/hysteria. Acid rain and heavy metals are bad for us (and nearly every other living thing). Air pollution like what Beijing experiences is something I hope we never have to face in this country. Environmentalism is alright by me – I consider myself to be an environmentalist. I just don’t buy the AGW Armageddon story. There’s too much science against it to ignore and its it can’t hold itself up by computer models that aren’t working.
They certainly can, and it was never in contention. I am not “conservative,” though. Some of my stances may be, but I am unambiguously pro-freedom and that’s my overriding concern. There are tenets of the LP with which I disagree as well. Nothing is black and white in politics, it’s all shades of gray, you know?
Even if I were “conservative” it certainly wouldn’t detract from my credibility either. To use your words, “Them’s the rules, like it or not.”
The rest of what you said was already answered in a previous post.
And to elaborate on a point I was trying to make earlier, an argument against oil companies (or any companies) purely on the grounds that they are in the business of making profit won’t hold any water with me. I understand economics quite well and capitalism is the best system we’ve got, simply because it most adequately mirrors human behavior. That’s the only reason I brought up that I am a Libertarian at all. Argue the science, not your economic politics with me. I am no socialist and I make no apologies for that. I reject any arguments for social change on economic grounds, and I don’t think it’s unfair to make you aware of that ahead-of-time, so none of you are wasting your breath.
Do we all understand one another now?
Claiming that debate should end on any scientific topic is also patently unscientific.
Who is claiming that scientific debate should be ended though? A broad consensus may emerge about the big picture, even when many details have yet to be clarified. You’re making hay over a misunderstanding that many people have between a debate about policy and the debate within the scientific community, which, I agree, should continue. But would you agree that there comes a point where policy-makers need to act on the necessarily incomplete but nevertheless broad consensus scientific information they have available? Especially since “Admitting that we don’t know is what science is all about” means, in practice, that the scientific debate may never be concluded to the satisfaction of all parties.
In short, I have no problem with the spirit of what you’re saying. What I would have a problem with would be saying that no policy initiatives are justified until the scientific debate is resolved. Because by then it could well be too late to do anything meaningful at all to ameliorate the impact of climate change.
Claiming that we have perfect understanding of climate when we have a hard time predicting the weather is a little too hard for me to swallow.
Who claims this perfect understanding? Does science allow perfect understanding of anything? If not, then science can and should inform responsible policy-making in the absence of perfect understanding.
Ward is completely accurate on this point.
This is the “at all costs” argument which could destroy our economy. Science provides no solutions, even if AGW were a fact. We may not be able to do anything about it. Making bad policy off of bad science isn’t a good thing either! Bad policy can surely cause harm to people.
Policy is already harming people as more and more acres of farmland are being used to create ethanol. I don’t just mean corn, either. Crop land in poorer countries are also being used to produce biofuels now instead of food. We are directly to blame for this because it’s our economic demand that’s driving the change. It’s driving the price of food up here, and making it more scarce abroad. If it gets to be too much worse, people may starve as the population grows and food gets more expensive. If AGW is wrong then policies may end up killing many poor people.
We can’t just say “what could it hurt if we’re wrong” and ignore the answers when we don’t like them. Some costs are acceptable, others are not. Economic collapse and starving people are examples of things I’m not willing to accept.
Solar has had some major improvements made by MIT (and others) in recent days and auto makers really are trying to provide cost-effective hybrids. They know the demand is there – the science just has to catch up. This stuff will get cheaper as demand for it remains (and increases) and, eventually, the market really will provide the solution for energy independence. Even if AGW is a completely false hypothesis, that certainly isn’t limiting demand for alternative energy is it? If a single hybrid or electric were to come out that could compete with other cars on every point, wouldn’t the inventor of that technology stand to make billions of dollars and crush every other car company out there? The one to get there first will dominate the market, and they all know that. Which one of them wouldn’t like to eliminate their competition?
Even if we can’t agree on the reasons energy independence is a good thing, we still agree.
You sound pretty reasonable to me, therefore I doubt that you actually believe that the northern ice cap is going to melt in five years. Is it really so reasonable to believe that if humans produce a scant 3% of the 0.0384% CO2 in the air that we’re not going to have enough time for the market to deliver a sufficient solution for energy independence? Is this really so much a cause for hysteria as Mr. Gore wants us to believe?
“An entire political party stands to gain if they can maintain that they exist to save the world.”
And another entire political party stands to gain if they can maintain the status quo. Your political motivation argument remains weak.
This is identical to the creationist claim that those who accept evolution declare that all debate has ended. Just as there continues to be much scientific debate about the details of evolution, there continues to be much debate about the details of AGW.
The claim that ‘thousands of scientists that contest the “consensus” ‘ is also much in line with the creationists. In fact there only a handful of peer-reviewed publications that raise doubts about AGW, all of which have been debunked, and the lists of scientists who contest AGW, which denialists are so fond of circulating, contain duplications, non-scientists, non-climate scientists, and people who have asked to be removed, but have not been. Again, very much like the creationist strategies. (It’s worth noting that although nearly all creationists are AGW denialists, many AGW denialists are not creationists.)
The CATO institute is a Libertarian think tank and they don’t stand to gain from such a minority position. Why is it a position they maintain?
Why would Libertarians toe a line if they have nothing to gain by doing so? We don’t have that much political power and what little we have isn’t increasing that much. Honesty in a political debate between two major parties is easy to sacrifice for political points.
The powerless little guy is probably the one that’s going to tell you the truth when he supports an unpopular opinion since he’ll likely have as much power tomorrow morning as he did the day before. If he just bowed to whichever opinion was more popular, it’s clear he’ll gain from that: more Libertarians, more campaign contributions, more political power.
It’s the reason I get product advice from Consumer Reports, and I ask for it from others I know. It’s the same reason and I interest in what the BBB has to say about a company. They don’t stand to gain by lying to me and they have everything to lose.
Your argument against my argument remains weak.
Because, you see, liberals hang Libertarians and burn silhouettes of FDR into the front lawns of Libertarians.
Oh, wait, nothing like that ever happened?
This is in no way the same. This is a debate on a scientific position. ID cannot even be called a scientific position because it’s not verifiable or falsifiable, so there is no actual debate. Evolution wins by default because it has no scientific competition.
The best you can do is claim that “they’re all debunked” and “look, someone made a false claim and would not retract it?”
Because someone did something that neither of us agree with, an entire scientific position, in your mind, loses? Well, your standards for what constitutes a thoroughly debunked position are pretty low it seems.
Irrespective of who initiated any ad hominem, and ignoring what is essentially sophistry and mental masturbation (and hey, I’m talking all sides here), the above quote, in the context of this
argumentwankfest indicates that Ward S. Denker is talking through his hat.And hey, if you want to imagine that I’m thinking of the word “asshat” here, that’s fine with me.
No, because, despite the fact that they don’t even hold a majority opinion anymore and that they can no longer get away with murdering blacks they still hold about the same amount of antipathy they always did. Now all they can do is spew venom. Put a group of libertarians across a fence from a bunch of liberals and the same kind of vitriol will fly.
I rarely find a group of liberals that wouldn’t openly say things like “Really, though, what we’d like is for you to blow it out your arse someplace far from here” and “Another fucking libertoonian whining that AGW can’t be true.”
It’s all hate and vitriol that is directed toward me because I hold a differing scientific position. Are these warranted attacks? What did I say to deserve them? I’ve been nothing but civil, and I choose to remain that way.
Even by focusing on my simile, you miss the entire point of what I was trying to say.
I didn’t come here to pick a fight, I said what I did to point out the incivility of calling people “deniers” or “denialists” and equating it to holocaust denial (which is surely why this word is chosen — it’s meant to incite people and make them angry). I said what I did to illustrate the point that a scientific position is not woo, no matter how much you would like it to be.
Shitfuckdamn. I meant to include a sarcasterisk about how there’s nothing wrong with masturbation.
Cannabinaceae,
Are you trying to imply that we can somehow predict the weather without fail and that climate is not an even more complex beast to try and predict?
Can you show where any of the climate computer models we use have been able to “predict” what we already know has happened? The sheer number of variables in any climate model is immense and any one of them being wrong would throw the entire model out of whack.
Nitpicking the way I make my point rather than actually trying to refute the point I made is rather intellectually dishonest, don’t you agree?
There are several reasons why I hold libertarians in disdain. Probably the major one is the worship of the free market and property rights above everything else, including everyone else. Plus every single libertarian I’ve ever run across is an economic and historical illiterate.
Pretty well every libertarian says they sneer at liberals and conservatives equally. In real life, libertarians are conservatives who want to smoke dope.
I don’t believe you.
Science is neither liberal, conservative or libertarian. And the current scientific consensus on the issue of climate change is that man is having an effect on the environment. Why is it that libertarians who so often appeal to science are among the most vocal critics of a science that has such a strong scientific backing?
It may have nothing to do with libertarianism, correlation does not imply causation. But it’s quite concerning that the biggest AGW deniers come from a group that parade scientific knowledge as a beacon of understanding.
Kel,
There’s a simple explanation: it’s a false hypothesis, despite its political popularity.
Your simple explanation doesn’t explain the scientific consensus on the issue.
Scientific consensus implies that someone bothered to ask every climate scientist what their scientific opinion was.
I doubt that many of the ones that even agree with the AGW hypothesis agree that we should take extreme measures over it. Few of them are likely to claim that increasing temperature is going to produce extreme climate events (tornados, hurricanes, etc.) – most of them know better than that. Probably only wacky Al Gore believes the North pole ice cap is going to completely melt in five years.
Most of us that you call “deniers” agree that the Earth is warming, we just don’t agree that humans are the cause of it.
No it doesn’t.
“Scientific consensus is the collective judgement, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity.” (my emphasis)
I didn’t say that consensus was the same thing as unanimity, I said that it implies that everyone was asked.
No, the words you disingenuosly put in my mouth are not in fact my opinion. Don’t you agree?
It seems to be your opinion that, since we can’t tell exactly how many centimeters of rain will fall between 100 and 101 days from now on the state of, say, Maryland (an example of an “exact” prediction, don’t you agree?), it’s also impossible for us to determine how much radiative forcing arises from anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Don’t you agree?
A rather uninformed opinion, if true (for someone who claims to be familiar with the literature). Don’t you agree? In fact, if an informed person honestly held that opinion, it would actually be an example of stupidity. Don’t you agree?
BTW, I used metric units because so many libertoonians treat them as if they were some kind of liberal plot to deprive true patriots of their rights. Don’t you agree? Using the metric system is essentially a taking. Don’t you agree?)
ShitfuckDAMN this is fun! Don’t you agree?
Sorry, gotta go to bed now. Probably won’t get to check back until this thread is dead.
Kind regards.
(Don’t you agree?)
question: why is it that the worlds seems to consist solely of the
U.S.A for libertarians? how can AGW be a Democrat/Al Gore plot when scientists all over the world have arrived at the same conclusions?
I see Ward is another AGW denier. Wrong of course. Doesn’t understand what consensus means. That took him from naive to a less than truth teller. And they wonder why we don’t believe them?
Climate has to take into account a LOT of factors, and CO2 is a very tiny part of all of that. The biggest greenhouse gas is water vapor and accounts for most warming, and being able to predict how many centimeters of rain will fall in an area implies being able to predict the amount of water vapor that should be in the air. Cloud cover does not figure into the models. If they’re such good models, I must ask again: why can’t they predict what has already happened?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/
When asked why it is that, for the first 800 years of a 5,000 year warming period after a glacial termination, the CO2 levels lag behind the actual temperature this is the response:
I’ve bolded the relevant part. It’s admitted that this process is not understood but that it’s merely swept under the rug as if this lack of scientific understanding is meaningless. The first 16% of the warming period cannot be attributed in any way to CO2 radiative “forcing.” Afterward he fails to explain why his conclusion is that the rest of it cannot be attributed to the “currently unknown process.”
That’s 800 years (in each period) of temperature increases where CO2 is not having the effects they’re claiming it should. All it gets is a shrug and a dismissal. That is simply not a scientific conclusion – that says we’re missing something very important there.
Note how often the word “could” shows up in the statements before it on that page. After this statement, the tone changes to “did.”
Non sequitur, in my opinion. One can’t just wave his hands around during a part they don’t understand and say “though nobody knows how this works, so I use my mystical powers nobody else possesses to determine that it’s not important.”
Geez, I logged on to see if there was something new and interesting regarding geology and just found the thread monopolized by some ass clown Dork S Wanker or something like that. Too bad, often times this place has pearls but you have to search through the shit first.
Just a question Ward S. Denker, do you think the tens of thousands of climate scientists who work in the field do not take what you are saying into account in their daily work? Do you think of them as ignorant, or just incompetent?
Pre-industrial CO2 levels were about 275 ppm. Current CO2 levels are about 384 ppm. 275 / 384 ~= 0.72 . So humans have produced about 28% of the CO2 currently in the atmosphere – not ‘3%’ . You’ll see ‘30%’ because some people round up. And you’ll see ‘humans have increased CO2 levels by 40% because 384 / 275 ~= 1.40 , meaning the anthropogenic CO2 currently in the atmosphere is equal to 40% of the pre-industrial (rather than current) concentration. As to what this has to do with global warming, you can find that here or here .
(As to whether it is reasonable to believe ‘that we’re not going to have enough time for the market to deliver a sufficient solution for energy independence?’, WTF does it mean for ‘the market’ to deliver ‘a sufficient solution for energy independence’ and what the hell does that have to do with how strongly CO2 drives global warming? )
Water vapor is a feed back, not a forcing. See for a explanation of what makes a climate forcing and why it matters.
The models used do model clouds although they remain one of the largest sources of uncertainties. One of the two links in my previous post debunks your claim the models cannot model the past.
Ward, where did you find this 3% nonsense? Are you assuming that, if human CO2 production is 3% of natural CO2 production, then it contributes just 3% of the increase? Where did the rest come from (don’t say volcanoes; that is a non-starter)?
I am not aware of anyone who has published any climatology research in the past 20 years who says that global warming is not taking place.
The basic science is that Earth’s surface gets most of its energy from the sun as visible radiation and loses most of it as infra-red radiation (AKAIK not seriously contested for 150 years).
CO2 is transparent to visible radiation but less so to infra-red (ditto).
The presence of CO2 in the atmosphere is mainly responsible for Earth being warmer than the moon and increasing the concentration is, in the absence of other factors, likely to increase Earth’s temperature (accepted by atmospheric scientists for 100 years).
The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has been increasing (well documented since about 1960) and the increase has come from human activity, especially from fossil fuel use (several independent lines of evidence support this).
There is no known negative feedback mechanism that could prevent the increase in CO2 from causing global warming.
Where exactly do you take issue with this?
“Why would Libertarians toe a line if they have nothing to gain by doing so?”
I was actually referring to the Republican party with regards to the party of maintaining the status quo. Although I’m sure the libertarians would also love it if corporations didn’t have to regulate their externalities.
The process is not ‘swept under the rug’ in any way. Many papers are published on the topic every year. It’s an active area of research ( see here ), and probably connected with Milankovitch cycles. Also, see the 2007 update which has a more in-depth explanation of CO2’s role in that warming.
Al Gore has black helicopters with mind-control beams in every nation. All over the world there are fools who do not wear their velostat caps.
That would be Naomi Oreskes.
If you’d rather an organization determine the results, determinging consensus is the reason why the IPCC exists. You can find their latest report here.
From Canada
Did Myers read his link?
First this shows the lack of quality of the authors. They try to say geology was creationist until Darwin. Hogwash. It was already anti-biblical creationist. In fact this ideas demanded a long earth geology otherwise they failed.
The evidence of the earth is the friend of biblical creationism. it all fits our models.
If geology can take on I.D , for some reason seeing it as a opponent, then commit itself.
I suspect these authors just want to be noticed in the issue of our times as opposed to the usual obscurity they work in.
Byers, meet Denker. Denker, Byers. I’m sure you’ll have a lot to talk to each other about; ideally, by email (or at least in some other forum than this one).
(Credit where due: Byers might be a raving lunatic idiot troll, but at least he is not a threadjacking troll.)