Re: Invulnerable logic [Was:Re: How Our Brains Ignore Unpleasant

On Jan 21, 3:56 am, stew dean <stewd...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 18Jan, 22:45, Evopeach <keaton1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

For the intelligensia it takes a lot of activity to be fulfilled.
For you I expect the SuUnday funnies and an occasional crossword would
be sufficient.

I'm sorry but one thing that is very clear about you is you are not
'inteligensia'. Im guessing you may have come from a small community
where you where the brightest one there, but by the way you post to
this group your intellectual diet is lacking in real fibre.

While I am sure you could define real fibre in reading material, etc.
I have no desire to read Dianetics or the Book of Urantia, although I
detect they have certainly inpacted your thinking.

This is easily remedied as there are many many great books on modern
day thinking you could be reading to get over you rather strange
belief that the ID movement is more than the last chance salon for
creationism, one where the piano player claims to be a concert level
professional but gets about 2 out of three notes right most of the
chairs arnt safe to sit on and the whisky is mostly old tea.

A solon is not a saloon, it's arn't and ID has been around for more
than 100 years and it currently being updated by additional
scholarship and learning over the intervening decades.>

The idea was to take evolution on on it's own ground, namely science.
If ID is valid then there is nothing in science that can stop it's
progress. Valid idea. Problem was that despite the best efforts of
those in the ID movement no one could find any working science.

The basic idea of design deals with abiogenesis and life (clock) and
the necessity of a designer (intelligence). Science has been attemping
to falsify the ID so defined for 100 years by demonstrating
scientifically the naturalistic creation of life under primal
conditions with absolute total failure. ID's basic prediction of
intelligence being required to bring life from non life stands
unchallenged after 100 years.


Lots of ideas and hypothesis but these where often over inflated and
easily
poped, for example Micheal Behe's irreducible complexity in the
infamous form of the flagallum turned out to be a) reducable and b)
missing the point - evolution reduces complexity as well as increasing
it meaning irreducable complexity just demonstrats a lack of
understanding of evolution.

No one has elucidated a believable justso story for the flagellum, let
alone illustrated the building of one from basic components in a lab
setting. The most laughable explanations of supposed pathways uses
words like co-mingling of similar proteins effected the various
structures from their predecessors.

Meanwhile there are transitional forms in any natural history mueseum
you care to visit, there are clear links between living animals and
animals no longer alive, we do see links between living animals
through markers in DNA which allow us to see which animals share
ancestors so building a tree even without fossil records.

You see similar design elements used by a common designer who prevents
natural explanations by using novelty and choose to interpret it
according to your preconcieved methodological naturalism.

Are you saying phylogenetic trees and molecular clock branchpoints are
in agreement with the fossil record as to time period and
chronological sequence?

I put those who don't accept evolution in the same camp as those who
don't think global warming is happening. With so much easily accessabe
information seconds away not to have enough information to make an
informed decision is either deep denial, extreme laziness or just a
latent desire not to learn (ignorance is bliss).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_consensus

Robert M. Carter, geologist, researcher at the Marine Geophysical
Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia: "the accepted global
average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since
1998 ... there is every doubt whether any global warming at all is
occurring at the moment, let alone human-caused warming."[9]

Vincent R. Gray, coal chemist, climate consultant, founder of the New
Zealand Climate Science Coalition: "The two main 'scientific' claims
of the IPCC are the claim that 'the globe is warming' and 'Increases
in carbon dioxide emissions are responsible'. Evidence for both of
these claims is fatally flawed."[10]


Hendrik Tennekes, retired Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute: "The blind adherence to the harebrained idea that climate models can generate 'realistic' simulations of climate is the principal reason why I remain a climate skeptic. From my background in turbulence I look forward with grim anticipation to the day that climate models will run with a horizontal resolution of less than a kilometer. The horrible predictability problems of turbulent flows then will descend on climate science with a vengeance."[12]

Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of physics at the University of
Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists : "models
used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are
incoherent and invalid from a scientific point of view".[

Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovskaya
Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences: "Global warming
results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere,
but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy -
almost throughout the last century - growth in its
intensity...Ascribing 'greenhouse' effect properties to the Earth's
atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated...Heated greenhouse
gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the
atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away

Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for
Astrophysics: "[T]he recent warming trend in the surface temperature
record cannot be caused by the increase of human-made greenhouse gases
in the air."

George V. Chilingar, Professor of Civil and Petroleum Engineering at
the University of Southern California: "The authors identify and
describe the following global forces of nature driving the Earth's
climate: (1) solar radiation ..., (2) outgassing as a major supplier
of gases to the World Ocean and the atmosphere, and, possibly, (3)
microbial activities ... . The writers provide quantitative estimates
of the scope and extent of their corresponding effects on the Earth's
climate [and] show that the human-induced climatic changes are
negligible."[19]

David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of
Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester: "The observed pattern
of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does
not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse
warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is
not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and
other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate
warming."[21]


William M. Gray, Professor of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State
University: "This small warming is likely a result of the natural
alterations in global ocean currents which are driven by ocean
salinity variations. Ocean circulation variations are as yet little
understood. Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent
temperature changes. We are not that influential."[23] "I am of the
opinion that [global warming] is one of the greatest hoaxes ever
perpetrated on the American people."[24] "So many people have a vested
interest in this global-warming thing--all these big labs and research
and stuff. The idea is to frighten the public, to get money to study
it more."[25]


William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World
Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology: "There has
been a real climate change over the late nineteenth and twentieth
centuries that can be attributed to natural phenomena. Natural
variability of the climate system has been underestimated by IPCC and
has, to now, dominated human influences."[26]
George Kukla, retired Professor of Climatology at Columbia University
and Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, said in an interview: "What I
think is this: Man is responsible for a PART of global warming. MOST
of it is still natural."[27]
David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the
Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware: "About half of
the warming during the 20th century occurred prior to the 1940s, and
natural variability accounts for all or nearly all of the
warming."[28]
Marcel Leroux, former Professor of Climatology, Université Jean
Moulin: "The possible causes, then, of climate change are: well-
established orbital parameters on the palaeoclimatic scale, ... solar
activity, ...; volcanism ...; and far at the rear, the greenhouse
effect, and in particular that caused by water vapor, the extent of
its influence being unknown. These factors are working together all
the time, and it seems difficult to unravel the relative importance of
their respective influences upon climatic evolution. Equally, it is
tendentious to highlight the anthropic factor, which is, clearly, the
least credible among all those previously mentioned."[29]
Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil
Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa: global warming
"is the biggest scientific hoax being perpetrated on humanity. There
is no global warming due to human anthropogenic activities. The
atmosphere hasn't changed much in 280 million years, and there have
always been cycles of warming and cooling. The Cretaceous period was
the warmest on earth. You could have grown tomatoes at the North
Pole"[30]
Tim Patterson[31], paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at
Carleton University in Canada: "There is no meaningful correlation
between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time
frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they
are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of
the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years. On the
basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent
relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of
the past century's modest warming?"[32][33]
Ian Plimer, Professor of Mining Geology, The University of Adelaide:
"We only have to have one volcano burping and we have changed the
whole planetary climate... It looks as if carbon dioxide actually
follows climate change rather than drives it".[34]
Tom Segalstad, head of the Geological Museum at the University of
Oslo: "It is a search for a mythical CO2 sink to explain an
immeasurable CO2 lifetime to fit a hypothetical CO2 computer model
that purports to show that an impossible amount of fossil fuel burning
is heating the atmosphere. It is all a fiction".[35][36]
Frederick Seitz, retired, former solid-state physicist, former
president of the National Academy of Sciences: "So we see that the
scientific facts indicate that all the temperature changes observed in
the last 100 years were largely natural changes and were not caused by
carbon dioxide produced in human activities."[37]
Nir Shaviv, astrophysicist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem:
"[T]he truth is probably somewhere in between [the common view and
that of skeptics], with natural causes probably being more important
over the past century, whereas anthropogenic causes will probably be
more dominant over the next century. ... [A]bout 2/3's (give or take a
third or so) of the warming [over the past century] should be
attributed to increased solar activity and the remaining to
anthropogenic causes." His opinion is based on some proxies of solar
activity over the past few centuries.[38]
Fred Singer, Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the
University of Virginia: "The greenhouse effect is real. However, the
effect is minute, insignificant, and very difficult to detect."[39]
[40] "It's not automatically true that warming is bad, I happen to
believe that warming is good, and so do many economists."[41]
Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for
Astrophysics: "[T]here's increasingly strong evidence that previous
research conclusions, including those of the United Nations and the
United States government concerning 20th century warming, may have
been biased by underestimation of natural climate variations. The
bottom line is that if these variations are indeed proven true, then,
yes, natural climate fluctuations could be a dominant factor in the
recent warming. In other words, natural factors could be more
important than previously assumed."[42]
Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of
London: "...the myth is starting to implode. ... Serious new research
at The Max Planck Institute has indicated that the sun is a far more
significant factor..."[43]
Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center: "Our team ... has
discovered that the relatively few cosmic rays that reach sea-level
play a big part in the everyday weather. They help to make low-level
clouds, which largely regulate the Earth's surface temperature. During
the 20th Century the influx of cosmic rays decreased and the resulting
reduction of cloudiness allowed the world to warm up. ... most of the
warming during the 20th Century can be explained by a reduction in low
cloud cover."[44]
Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, Professor Emeritus from
University of Ottawa: "At this stage, two scenarios of potential human
impact on climate appear feasible: (1) the standard IPCC model ...,
and (2) the alternative model that argues for celestial phenomena as
the principal climate driver. ... Models and empirical observations
are both indispensable tools of science, yet when discrepancies arise,
observations should carry greater weight than theory. If so, the
multitude of empirical observations favours celestial phenomena as the
most important driver of terrestrial climate


I suspect you may be the least intellectual person currently posting
on the net and the statement concerning global warming opponents and
connecting opponents of evolution with them is clear and present
evidence of that fact.

I'd like to see the last, say, three books you've read as that'll be
the biggest give away to how balanced your diet is. I personaly read
about one or two books a month, which considering how much I work,
read online and listen to is not bad going and I'd say well above
normal, so to say you read one or two books a week - urm. Let's just
say I'm skeptical.

Stew Dean


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Arctic ice cover
    ... Dissent Over Global Warming Claims! ... Call Climate Fears 'Pseudo ... dissent from man-made global warming fears in an Open Letter to German ... measurable effect on global warming through CO2 emissions. ...
    (soc.culture.scottish)
  • Re: Israeli Scientist Changes Sides On Global Warming
    ... Step Three No other mechanism explains the warming. ... in the story of global warming. ... Panel on Climate Change-- the United Nations agency that heads the ... sustained up to 10% more cosmic ray damage than others. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Living in a state of politicized fear.
    ... warming and am slowly beginning to think that it is pure nonsense. ... Not all scientists have caved in to political pressure - ... I have taken note that those scientists who claim that global warming ... weather and climate science, are hardly compelling. ...
    (soc.culture.scottish)
  • Re: NBC: An Inconvenient Truth
    ... persistent myths of the global warming skeptics' camp, ... For many climate scientists, myself included, these ... calibration of the potential impact of global warming. ...
    (rec.music.artists.springsteen)
  • Re: Stolen honor.
    ... global warming as well. ... Scientists who conclude that the observed warming is more likely ... but in 2006 he joined a climate skeptic ... increasing CO2, which is in fact a minor greenhouse gas, triggers a ...
    (rec.boats)
Loading