Global Warming On Hold

[HauteHippie]

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/weather/12/...ref=mpstoryview

I guess it's not just Antarctica that's getting colder instead of warmer. Poor Iowans.

[Nanuq]

As long as we're enjoying the winter, who wants to go tobogganing??

LineRider!

[Pugwash]

I presume you missed the link between global warming and extreme winters in school. It's why they refer to it as "climate change" now.

[ryyannon]

I presume you missed the link between global warming and extreme winters in school. It's why they refer to it as "climate change" now.

Good one, Pug.

[HauteHippie]

I presume you missed the link between global warming and extreme winters in school. It's why they refer to it as "climate change" now.

Most schools here don't teach junk science. They leave that for the politicians and Hollywood stars. I have, however, heard the 'global climate change' term tossed around but not just 'climate change.' I'm happy to hear that they've dropped the 'global' part now, though. Since it isn't really global after all.

[Nanuq]

You mean to tell me the climate is changing? It's not static? Holy smokes!

[Pugwash]

Most schools here don't teach junk science.

The science of climate change is far from junk science. You cannot deny the science behind it, it's pretty much absolute.

The debate isn't on whether or not something warms up when you trap CO2 (hint: it does), the debate is whether or not it's happening to us now (hint: We don't know).

Just because we take opposing sides of the debate doesn't mean we have to start denying the laws of thermodynamics. It works for both sides of the argument.

ps. I hope you're right about Junk Science as I'd hate for ID to be sneaked in again.

[HauteHippie]

You mean to tell me the climate is changing? It's not static? Holy smokes!

Yes!!! In fact they're currently claiming that in some places it's getting warmer, in some places it's getting cooler, extreme events occur, and the average temperature is rising ever so slightly!!

Wait, though. Isn't that the way the weather has always worked?

[HauteHippie]

The science of climate change is far from junk science. You cannot deny the science behind it, it's pretty much absolute.

The debate isn't on whether or not something warms up when you trap CO2 (hint: it does), the debate is whether or not it's happening to us now (hint: We don't know).

Just because we take opposing sides of the debate doesn't mean we have to start denying the laws of thermodynamics. It works for both sides of the argument.

ps. I hope you're right about Junk Science as I'd hate for ID to be sneaked in again.

In the scientific community, the debate is whether temperatures rise as a result of increased CO2 or whether CO2 concentrations rise as a result of increased temperatures. The most solid scientific evidence to date indicates the latter. And we do know that temps are rising in some areas, but we also know the increases are very slight, and they're not occurring globally. In Hollywood and the political arena, there is very little debate and the case is essentially closed by junk science.

[Nanuq]

Did someone mention Intelligent Design? You might like this very enjoyable read:

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/in...iew&id=2177

Pay particular attention to the section about Novel Genes and Proteins. Fascinating, and well written.

[ryyannon]

Did someone mention Intelligent Design? You might like this very enjoyable read:

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/in...iew&id=2177

Pay particular attention to the section about Novel Genes and Proteins. Fascinating, and well written.

Thus, whether one envisions the evolutionary process beginning with a noncoding region of the genome or a preexisting functional gene, the functional specificity and complexity of proteins impose very stringent limitations on the efficacy of mutation and selection. In the first case, function must arise first, before natural selection can act to favor a novel variation. In the second case, function must be continuously maintained in order to prevent deleterious (or lethal) consequences to the organism and to allow further evolution. Yet the complexity and functional specificity of proteins implies that both these conditions will be extremely difficult to meet. Therefore, the neo-Darwinian mechanism appears to be inadequate to generate the new information present in the novel genes and proteins that arise with the Cambrian animals

1. Before getting to the above, which is a sort of preamble to the justification of Intelligent Design, there are umpteen pages of specialized genetic and biological logic and math that no layman could possibly follow. Which means that he may be either offering a flawless demonstration, or the proverbial Tale Told by an Idiot, or yet again, something in-between: his spin on the question, with its lot of errors and oversights. Can anyone here either validate or refute his hypotheses? I sure can't. Granted, this paper has been peer-reviewed, but for most of us, this guy could be saying anything.

2. For me, one of the problems with the idea of Intelligent Design is the word Intelligent - particularly when applied to our own perception of ourselves and the universe.

[HauteHippie]

Did someone mention Intelligent Design? You might like this very enjoyable read:

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/in...iew&id=2177

Pay particular attention to the section about Novel Genes and Proteins. Fascinating, and well written.

Yea, that's what I've been saying all along. Evolution can explain incremental changes fairly well, but there is no evidence that it is responsible for creating complex organisms. Maybe it is responsible, but the secularists want us to take it on faith. Looks like the "Jesus freaks" hired themselves a writer!

[HauteHippie]

Thus, whether one envisions the evolutionary process beginning with a noncoding region of the genome or a preexisting functional gene, the functional specificity and complexity of proteins impose very stringent limitations on the efficacy of mutation and selection. In the first case, function must arise first, before natural selection can act to favor a novel variation. In the second case, function must be continuously maintained in order to prevent deleterious (or lethal) consequences to the organism and to allow further evolution. Yet the complexity and functional specificity of proteins implies that both these conditions will be extremely difficult to meet. Therefore, the neo-Darwinian mechanism appears to be inadequate to generate the new information present in the novel genes and proteins that arise with the Cambrian animals

1. Before getting to the above, which is a sort of preamble to the justification of Intelligent Design, there are umpteen pages of specialized genetic and biological logic and math that no layman could possibly follow. Which means that he may be either offering a flawless demonstration, or the proverbial Tale Told by an Idiot, or yet again, something in-between: his spin on the question, with its lot of errors and oversights. Can anyone here either validate or refute his hypotheses? I sure can't. Has this paper even been peer-reviewed? For most of us, this guy could be saying anything.

2. For me, one of the problems with the idea of Intelligent Design is the word Intelligent - particularly when applied to our own perception of ourselves and the universe.

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance.......

[Pugwash]

Yea, that's what I've been saying all along. Evolution can explain incremental changes fairly well, but there is no evidence that it is responsible for creating complex organisms. Maybe it is responsible, but the secularists want us to take it on faith. Looks like the "Jesus freaks" hired themselves a writer!

It reads to me like "You can't explain it adequately, therefore it must be God."

The answer to "we don't know yet" isn't a rationalisation for a divine being.

[HauteHippie]

It reads to me like "You can't explain it adequately, therefore it must be God."

You must have skipped out on the reading comprehension drills in school. I clearly left the door open to the possibility that the blasphemers might be right. It might be evolution... it might be God... who knows. Neither should be taught as fact. Certainly, the Biblical creation story is not supported by the evidence.

[Pugwash]

You must have skipped out on the reading comprehension drills in school. I clearly left the door open to the possibility that the blasphemers might be right. It might be evolution... it might be God... who knows. Neither should be taught as fact. Certainly, the Biblical creation story is not supported by the evidence.

ID isn't science. Presenting it as such is a fallacy. Saying "you might be right, so you have to accept I might be right with my god stuff" doesn't wash with me.

Is Darwinian Evolution 100% correct? No, but using it to wedge religion into science classes is like saying Babbage's computer technology was flawed because he never foresaw Duke Nuke 'em.

Sure, teach creation in religion classes if you must, just don't try to spoon it out as science. And no matter how you look at it, Intelligent Design is religion.

[HauteHippie]

ID isn't science. Presenting it as such is a fallacy. Saying "you might be right, so you have to accept I might be right with my god stuff" doesn't wash with me.

Is Darwinian Evolution 100% correct? No, but using it to wedge religion into science classes is like saying Babbage's computer technology was flawed because he never foresaw Duke Nuke 'em.

Sure, teach creation in religion classes if you must, just don't try to spoon it out as science. And no matter how you look at it, Intelligent Design is religion.

I'd prefer to see schools stay neutral: teach that evolution accounts for most of the changes we see in recent history, but also mention that it doesn't fully explain the way things came to be.

[Pugwash]

I'd prefer to see schools stay neutral: teach that evolution accounts for most of the changes we see in recent history, but also mention that it doesn't fully explain the way things came to be.

I'd prefer them to teach science in the science classes and religion in the religion ones. It's a simple enough delineation.

I'm going to 'agree to disagree' with you. Ok?

[Nanuq]

@Pugs

Did you read any of what I linked? It speaks very specifically of enzymes, proteins, and their combination. Pure biology. It also speaks of combinations and permutations and efficacy. Pure math.

Can you point out a section of that article that's flawed? Or perhaps the errors you're claiming are in his reference material, like the Journal of Molecular Biology? Science magazine? The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences? Scientific American? International Journal of Developmental Biology?

Hint: those are peer-reviewed periodicals. You don't get published there otherwise.

[HauteHippie]

I'd prefer them to teach science in the science classes and religion in the religion ones. It's a simple enough delineation.

I'm going to 'agree to disagree' with you. Ok?

See, this is why liberals should stay out of education. They completely misinterpret everything. Government schools (here in the USA anyhow) should always be entirely neutral. And admitting there are things about the world that we don't fully understand yet is a perfectly neutral, undogmatic, and agnostic truth.

[HauteHippie]

@Pugs

Did you read any of what I linked? It speaks very specifically of enzymes, proteins, and their combination. Pure biology. It also speaks of combinations and permutations and efficacy. Pure math.

Can you point out a section of that article that's flawed? Or perhaps the errors you're claiming are in his reference material, like the Journal of Molecular Biology? Science magazine? The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences? Scientific American? International Journal of Developmental Biology?

Hint: those are peer-reviewed periodicals. You don't get published there otherwise.

A lot of people want everybody to align themselves with either the Bible thumpers, or the liberals. There is no room for in between.

[ryyannon]

@Pugs?

Did you read any of what I linked? It speaks very specifically of enzymes, proteins, and their combination. Pure biology. It also speaks of combinations and permutations and efficacy. Pure math.

C'mon Nanuq: you of all people should know that 'pure' biology and 'pure' math don't necessarily result in pure 'science'.

If memory serves, all sorts of half-witted racist theories - just for one example - have used 'science' to back up their assertions.

Can you point out a section of that article that's flawed? Or perhaps the errors you're claiming are in his reference material, like the Journal of Molecular Biology? Science magazine? The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences? Scientific American? International Journal of Developmental Biology?

Once again, reassuring, but not the end-all.

Hint: those are peer-reviewed periodicals. You don't get published there otherwise.

As was his paper: my mistake in not noticing it the first time. Personally, I don't have a horse in this particular race: if it turned out that Pugwash was responsible for the creation of the universe, it would neither surprise me or bother me one bit.

But someone using mathematics, statistical analysis and biology to prove that Pugwash is da Man? Uh-uh. I need something more credible. Even Pugwash's word for it would be more convincing than trying to use the logical to try to posit the existence of the theological.

Word games indeed, but no more so than what can be done with 'pure' science.

Despite all the flawless math, it still doesn't add up for me.

[Pugwash]

Can you point out a section of that article that's flawed? Or perhaps the errors you're claiming are in his reference material, like the Journal of Molecular Biology? Science magazine? The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences? Scientific American? International Journal of Developmental Biology?

Post number 10,000 and I waste it on this.

I don't need to point out the flawed section as the very magazine that published it in 2004 did it for me.

The paper by Stephen C. Meyer, "The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories," in vol. 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239 of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, was published at the discretion of the former editor, Richard v. Sternberg. Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor; Sternberg handled the entire review process. The Council, which includes officers, elected councilors, and past presidents, and the associate editors would have deemed the paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings because the subject matter represents such a significant departure from the nearly purely systematic content for which this journal has been known throughout its 122-year history.

Stephen C. Meyer is the guy that pushes the stupid "teach the controversy" position as part of the Wedge movement that is trying to get ID taught in Science classes.

Oh, and Chieftang, I'm not a Liberal. I'll cop to being an atheist, however.

[HauteHippie]

Post number 10,000 and I waste it on this.

I don't need to point out the flawed section as the very magazine that published it in 2004 did it for me.

Stephen C. Meyer is the guy that pushes the stupid "teach the controversy" position as part of the Wedge movement that is trying to get ID taught in Science classes.

Oh, and Chieftang, I'm not a Liberal. I'll cop to being an atheist, however.

Nah. It's not a "wedge movement." ID is a grass roots movement to fight militant secularism. Anyhow, a brief overview the controversy is important and, uhh, educational because it helps students put into perspective a debate that comes up in the news all the time. How could you profess to know anything about the subject if you don't understand what people are arguing about? These are the same reasons schools cover "climate change", the current space mission, etc.

[Pugwash]

Nah. It's not a "wedge movement." ID is a grass roots movement to fight militant secularism. Anyhow, a brief overview the controversy is important and, uhh, educational because it helps students put into perspective a debate that comes up in the news all the time. How could you profess to know anything about the subject if you don't understand what people are arguing about? These are the same reasons schools cover "climate change", the current space mission, etc.

I didn't say "A Wedge Movement", I said "The Wedge"[1]. CSC Vice President Stephen C. Meyer, the writer of the document linked here, is one of the authors of the famous "Wedge" document.

He also started the "Teach the Controversy"[2] movement, whereby they try to say ID is as valid as Darwinism in the science classroom.

Oh, and militant secularism has its place in the science classroom and is valid as militant baking in the home economics classroom. Science is not religion and religion isn't science.

I could go on, but I'll just post the link to Vengenza and leave it at that for the night.

http://www.venganza.org/

Oh, and as a footnote for anyone reading:

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teach_the_controversy