Hackers Break Into Climate Change Research Center, Leak Email

[Hurin]

Ah powerline. Yes! I want to become a charter member of the GW Busah Presidential C enter! And read entries like "Crazy, Or Left-Wing? Is There Still A Difference?"

LOL. What's next? Links to World Net Daily?

Oh. I see. You'd rather attack the messenger rather than address the substance of what is being said. Sounds like you'd fit right in with these "scientists."

I think that if you read those overviews of the leaked/stolen docs, you'd find yourself feeling a bit silly about so glibly dismissing the issues surrounding them. But hey man. . . I'm sure you'd go over to talkingpointsmemo or watch Countdown tonight and they'll confirm for you that you're right to never read a dissenting point of view beyond reading the headline.

 

[AVT]

So you're saying that all grant-funded science is biased. With all due respect, that's complete bullsh*t.

No, it's not. You cannot have funding without bias. Even the leaning towards unbiased results is itself a bias.

 

[Hurin]

Either those scientists were colluding to delete emails subject to FOI or they were not. Either they were calling to have editors of scientific journals fired (how's that for freedom of scientific inquiry?) or not. Either they have been clearly proven to be withholding valid scientific data from peer review or they have not. Either they were questioning the methodology of a colleague privately while proclaiming it bullet-proof in public prior to any investigation, or they were not.

I fail to see how those emails being quoted on Powerline renders the data contained in them moot. You clearly can't count on the NYT or the WP to analyze them. So we have to go to the blogosphere. And clearly TPM and Kos aren't going to be interested. So where do you need to go to actually see them analyzed instead of swept under the rug. . . yes, you have to go to people who aren't already climate change "true believers". . . and in this case, Powerline seems to have a reasonable analysis of these leaked documents that seems free of the rancor you reflexively attribute to them. Indeed, they open by stating that the scientists are acting in good faith (ie, they aren't engaging in a global conspiracy).

But hey, feel free to dismiss all these concerns because they appear on blogs you don't frequent and/or disagree with idealogically. I'm sure if you'd like, the media you enjoy will have this all readily and easily dismissed (without even addressing any of the real issues) within a few days and Olbermann will just be talking about Sarah Palin again tonight.

 

[Hurin]

And read entries like "Crazy, Or Left-Wing? Is There Still A Difference?"

BTW, did you even read the article you cite? It's not talking about the American Left. It's talking about the International Conference of Socialist Parties currently taking place in Chavez's Venezuela. And yes, the far Left in the world context can be reasonably judged to be batshit crazy and/or responsible for innumerable horrors over the last century or so.

And, it probably doesn't serve your purpose for anyone to actually read that article since the author goes out of his way to distance Obama and (hence) the American Left from those folks.

But again, much like the scientists in question here, you're ready to ignore facts that don't fit the narrative and instead attempt to discredit and attack the messenger(s). How perfect!

 

[Dreaz]

Right guys, a scientific conspiracy to stop people driving their SUVs. Yeah makes sense.

The docs are leaked on the net. Go look at them yourself. Besides a few personal remarks to friends, there's nothing to indicate that man-made global warming is a hoax.

 

[Atech]

I've heard this argument more and more on the internet, and I find it quite disturbing. You honestly don't think that some scientists pride themselves on being as objective as possible? As a scientist myself I cringe whenever someone alludes to all scientists being biased and untrustworthy. A lot of people also seem to think that scientists get payed based on their results; and at most universities, it just doesn't work like that. You submit a grant proposal, then you get the grant. You actually get payed BEFORE any actual research gets done. Where is the incentive to lie?

In training to be a scientist, I was taught to accept the data, no matter what I wanted to believe. A rigid background in sound scientific inquiry and scientific morality is required to become a respected researcher. When people insult my profession by saying, "There aren't any unbiased researchers" I take deep offense. I pride myself on following the data, admitting uncertainties, and separating observation from interpretation. Without a rigid set of morals, science cannot proceed, and the truth can never be reached. We'd all just sit around trying to think of new ways to skew data to what we want to believe, and no progress would be made. We'd be no better than intelligent design people.

Obviously there are immoral people out there, and I wouldn't be surprised if some scientists were trying to profit from this, however they are the exception - not the rule.



Still, CO2 levels have tripled due to the sudden release of previously-sequestered carbon reserves. If the past is the key to the present, then it will affect the climate. The debate is over how much, and what mechanisms will act to either mitigate or extenuate the change.

Erhm?!

 

[lewchenko]

It doesnt matter what the topic is (literally.. anything)... humanity cannot agree. Im not sure why this is the case. We have tools at our disposal which offer precise scientific means to establish whether something is or is not a threat... and we cant even agree how to use these tools correctly.

As a species, humanity seems never to act for the good of the whole, only for the prosperity of the ones in control (either economically or politically).

In summary.. we are a doomed species , and not because of climate change!

With regards to climate change, I find the debate interesting but nothing more. By my estimations, I have no more than 50 years left on this rock, and couldnt care whether it was around after that! (A viewpoint that most people would not agree with I expect)

In that time I expect the world to get hotter (for whatever reason), more wars, much more killing, but still progress and scientific advancement... balanced with half the world starving and living in polluted shanty towns.

So pretty much just like the last 50 years then ! There is a lot of money to be made by keeping things just the way it is.

Yours,
Sergev Anistrov Lewchenko

 

[hordaktheman]

No, it's not. You cannot have funding without bias. Even the leaning towards unbiased results is itself a bias.

lolwut? Why does this issue always result in such dogmatic semantics? That's just meaningless twisting of words.

You can absolutely have funding without bias. There is a vast difference between a private corporation funding research to paint itself in a good light and conducting academic research solely for its own sake, and is otherwise like saying that research on supernovas and black holes is biased and politically charged. Hell, 'knowledge for its own sake' been the core maxim since ancient Greek philosophy.

The fact is that most people base their opinion on climate change on their politics. Having a political opinion on something that isn't subjective in the first place is flat out absurd. It's literally equivalent to denying the existence of Jupiter 'because you voted for the other guy'.

 

[bicycle_wreck]

Erhm?!

Nice chart. Yes, looks like we've seen global warming before and that it is happening again. SPIN!

Your source (http://geocraft.com/WVFossils/global_warming.html) also indicates that the average temperature has risen 5* in the last 18,000 years due to the end of our interglacial period. They differ from the traditional argument in that they claim that global warming is a natural phenomenon--which I find to be more reasonable than denying it outright.

They also quote Dr. Lindzen which probably doesn't help their ethos any.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hotpolitics/reports/skeptics.html

 

[Atech]

Nice chart. Yes, looks like we've seen global warming before and that it is happening again. SPIN!

Your source (http://geocraft.com/WVFossils/global_warming.html) also indicates that the average temperature has risen 5* in the last 18,000 years due to the end of our interglacial period. They differ from the traditional argument in that they claim that global warming is a natural phenomenon--which I find to be more reasonable than denying it outright.

They also quote Dr. Lindzen which probably doesn't help their ethos any.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hotpolitics/reports/skeptics.html

I just look at some fun facts, see if you can spot them in these graphs:
http://www.grida.no/publications/vg/africa/page/3102.aspx

 

[lenardo]

main problem is

why are they suppressing their data, if their science is sound, then the data is sound and anyone who correctly runs the data -should- get the same results.

now if the science is not sound and the data- if uses correctly comes out with completely differing results, then we have issues...

when scientists say they'd rather delete the data rather than release it, it shows a lack of confidence in their data to be reviewed independantly.

lets take briffa's yamal data set, it's really good until 1990, then from 1990 to 2000 the data goes to crap- why? because of the number of trees uses (12 total for the DECADE) instead of the 50ish that is an acceptable data set..

the entire yamal 1990 data set had over 240 trees...over 20x the the number used, why were they not used, because they showed a DIFFERENT result than the 12 used..

it is a FACT that the mean global temp since 1998 has gone down- despite all the models saying otherwise, it is a FACT that since 1998 global emissions of CO2 by man has gone UP...

CO2 gone up, TEMP gone down,,,HMMMM

it is a fact that all the models use positive? negative (forget which it is) forcing on global co2 coverage vs radiation- ie as co2 increases, more energy is reflected back down, heating the planet more. with a "static" amount being radiated off...
however, it is a fact that as co2 increases and the amount of energy increases that is being radiated off the planet, the amount of energy that escapes the atmosphere ALSO increases- contrary to the models.

a recent college study says that approxiamately 50% of all warming since 1950 is due to land use changes- if a weather station is accurately positioned, and a few years later a development occurrs- ie the area around said station goes from being bare ground to say,....pavement. the temps recorded at said station WILL increase due to the fact that pavement gets HOTTER during the day than grass/field/dirt...


REMEMBER WE ARE TALKING LESS THAN 0.5 degree C total..

AGW is bunk-hopefully it'll all be revealed and neutralized before we get our asses taxed off

 

[Azhar]

The the only way to get real answers is hacking these days it seems like. A meteor came so close not that long ago and it was huge. It could have killed us all and no one said anything. Its like the movie 2012 where they don't tell anyone until its too late. I bet thats gonna happen. We'll all die without warning while the head hanchos of the world go into an ark or space ship.

This is what we're going to see when it comes lol
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xlIw_PCT-Y

I'm not sure if I WANT to know. I'd rather remain ignorant on whether a global killer is coming our way or not.

But a NEO, I can understand it not being announced. Remember Heaven's Gate cult?

 

[bicycle_wreck]

I just look at some fun facts, see if you can spot them in these graphs:
http://www.grida.no/publications/vg/africa/page/3102.aspx

Up, down, up, down, up, down, way up, little down, up, now.

Of course my "way up" is like 0.4* C.

 

[Atech]

Up, down, up, down, up, down, way up, little down, up, now.

Of course my "way up" is like 0.4* C.

Notice how the temperature jumped BIG way before the industial age.
Or how most of the temperature rise in the last 100 years occured BEFORE 1940...

things don't add up when you look at the claims of the CO2-globins.

 

[arentol]

What everyone needs to realize is that the entire "Climate Change" issue, and for that matter ALL "global" issues, are really about two things:

The UN gaining power over the US.
Smaller countries and third-world countries gaining power over the UN and US.

The UN hates the US because they want to be the big-dog in the world and they know they have no real power as long as the US is the worlds policeman. If they can gain power over the US then they become the worlds policeman and everyone will be afraid of them (note, "them" in this case is basically the EU at this point).

Most small first-world nations and all third-world nations hate the UN and US because they fear us. They feel impotent whenever they think of the US and UN, and they hate us even more because we help them and/or their people ALL THE TIME. For them it is like having a brother that is a big hollywood star. Most of the family kisses his ass, some ignore him, and some express their hatred, but inspite of all that he helps out almost everyone in the family, even some that openly hate him. He helps out with a loan to help you start a Subway Franchise here, a gift of a delivery van for your sisters florist company there, repeated bail-outs of your stupid cousin there. But secretly everyone HATES being dependent on this guy and thinks of him as a real jerk, even though he is not a jerk, he is just a guy trying to do the right thing, but completely naive about how his "help" comes off to everyone else.

So basically there is a world hierarchy that currently is US>UN>UN member nations>Individual nations

Any "global crisis" that can be laid at the feet of someone above your nation or organization on that list gives you power over that group (if they let it). That little bit of power is the only way for these nations to feel like they matter in the world. It is kind of like when a nerdy kid at school gets away with making a sarcastic remark to the most popular kid in school because the teacher is there, or more accurately because the popular kid really doesn't give a crap what the nerd says. It doesn't really mean the nerdy kid gained any "power" over the popular kid, but it sure makes the nerdy kid feel better.

A perfect example of this is the Kyoto Protocol. The US refused to sign because they knew it was just a power-grab by the UN and many small third-world countries. It was an attempt to gain power over the US and to use peer-pressure to force the US to allow the UN to have influence over our internal politics and laws. Thank god our leaders were smart enough to understand all that.

What I personally fear the most is the continuing support for the man-made climate change concept by many US politicians and scientific organizations. There is no evidence to support that claim that man has anything significant to do with global temperatures (minor affect, yes, significant affect, no), yet people keep supporting the idea anyway because it gives power to the people or nations, or themselves.

To prove how uninformed most people are on the subject I will ask two questions. probably ~90% of people in the US can honestly answer yes to the first, and probably ~5% can answer yes to the second. If you are not one of those that can answer yes to both... Then you you are under-informed and your opinion is basically worthless on this topic.

Do you understand the basic concept of personal "carbon footprint" and its supposed affect on global temperatures?
Do you understand solar activity and its affect on global temperatures?

I am not saying that all climate change is based entirely on solar activity. Nor am I saying humans have absolutely no affect on climate change. I am saying two things:

If you don't understand the probably correlation between solar activity and climate change then you clearly haven't done sufficient personal research into climate change to be taken seriously in a discussion of the matter, and that the fact that most people don't really understand any alternate theories on climate change, such as the solar activity one, is a clear sign that the scientific establishment, a/o media, a/o various governments, are not doing a good job of informing the public on this subject.

(BTW, if you answered yes to the second question and ALL of these terms, solar wind, cosmic radiation, and cloud cover, didn't immediately pop into your mind, then you don't really understand it at all.)

 

[ordovician]

^ Do you understand the complex interactions between CO2 solubility thermodynamics, carbonic acid, carbonate solubility, the equilibrium constants that govern their formation, and the ocean circulation patterns that are dependent on thermohaline currents? I used to explain this to my second-semester geology class, and it usually took two class periods to fully cover. This is on top of outside factors such as solar output and Milankovitch cyclicity.

The cliff's notes:

Increases CO2 increases polar summer temperatures, cold polar ocean waters are "less cold, and less likely to sink to bottom waters throughout the world -> warm bottom waters -> destabilization of hydrates? (worst case scenario, but has happened before).

Increased CO2 increases acidity of: rainwater -> enhanced weathering and carbonate deposition (negative feedback), oceans -> increased solubility of carbonates (positive feedback).

Warmer ocean -> decreased solublity of carbonates (negative feedback)
also: changed circulation patters lead to changed weather patterns, etc
Breakdown of Antarctic thermohaline current? (Worst case scenario)

Believe it or not, but this really is the way it works. Understanding this system actually has applications beyond understanding our current climate. It helps explain paleotemperature variations in the geological record.

Erhm?!

What's your point? There's correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels and global temperature. Keep in mind any graph that projects these values back that far is going to have a large margin of error.

 

[Climber]

I know you're just trolling, but what specifically lead you to the conclusion that "evolution" isn't 100% proven?

No I'm not trolling. Let me ask you something. What irrefutable fact leads you to believe that evolution is 100% true. It is at most a theory still. It has yet to be proven true but it is accepted fact since it seems to be the most likely answer. This is not the scientific method. No where am I not claiming it or anything else to be the answer, I'm just holding that theory and any others to the test of the scientific method. Or at leat I hope I am.

On another note, I am getting really depressed with the overall sentiment in here. It seems like everyone here thinks all scientists are crocks who just sit around and try to think of new ways to spin data. It's really mind blowing to me, and it makes me really upset. I think that the scientific community has to MAJOR issues with trust in the general population, and that's really sad. I truly believe science is the highest calling of mankind, and it has brought deep meaning to my life. To read that so many people have so little trust in science has really brought me down.

Science and academia is one of the highest callings of mankind and as such greater responsibility is placed on the shoulders of scientists and other academics. The veracity of our research and findings is of utmost importance and can lead to pivotal changes in human history. However, research costs time and money which the majority of scientist don't have hence grants and private funds. I see this all the time in research grants for History. We had one donor who wouldn't donate to Fresno State because Victor Davis Hanson and Bruce Thornton were there and he didn't agree with their conservative viewpoints and thought that Plague of the Minds unfairly attacked Al Gore. So basically because two of my professors disagreed with his assumptions our grant was not considered unless we changed our hypothesis and we had to look elsewhere.

Take for one example revisionist history. I agree that as more and more findings are found that we should always check what we have currently is constantly checked against newfound sources. However one movement we saw was the afrocentric view of classical studies. A historian Martin Bernal claimed that western civilization is based on African civilzation and not Greek. He manipulated evidence, twisted linguistics, made up dates, and confused etymolgies to prove his point. I have no quarell with his theory if the evidence fit, but Martin Bernal, a Professor Emeritus at Cornell Unviersity basically lied and committed academic fraud to get his point across. Of course he denies this and his "error" lies in the fact that he started with a theory and looked for whatever proved that point of view to the utter diesregard of everything else. That is just one example of many. If a Professor Emeritus at one of the most presitgious Universities in the world can do this so can others. Which is why I'm 100% against strings attached to grants and the lack of accountability most Universities and departments suffer from.

 

[Parmenides]

Journalists? What? We still have journalists these days?

 

[kirbyrj]

Scientists are just as suceptible to propoganda as the next person. What you do not mention is WHO is paying the grant. A more realistic timeline is:

1). Scientist writes a proposal with a bias assuming global warming to be true.
2). Scientist submits proposal for funding to an environmental company who also assumes global warming to be true.
3). Scientist with his experiments and interpretation of data proves what he is trying to prove so as to create a relationship where he can get more funding to do similar experiments.

This works both ways. There is no such thing as an unbiased observer. This is the great lesson of post-modernity. No scientist is objective. I'm sorry if it hurts your pride. You are not unbiased. Just from your post, I can see you are biased against "intelligent design." It doesn't matter what data you see. You will interpret data against any such thing due to your presupposition that it cannot be true. I don't even care one way or the other. Just pointing out you are not unbiased.

I've heard this argument more and more on the internet, and I find it quite disturbing. You honestly don't think that some scientists pride themselves on being as objective as possible? As a scientist myself I cringe whenever someone alludes to all scientists being biased and untrustworthy. A lot of people also seem to think that scientists get payed based on their results; and at most universities, it just doesn't work like that. You submit a grant proposal, then you get the grant. You actually get payed BEFORE any actual research gets done. Where is the incentive to lie?

In training to be a scientist, I was taught to accept the data, no matter what I wanted to believe. A rigid background in sound scientific inquiry and scientific morality is required to become a respected researcher. When people insult my profession by saying, "There aren't any unbiased researchers" I take deep offense. I pride myself on following the data, admitting uncertainties, and separating observation from interpretation. Without a rigid set of morals, science cannot proceed, and the truth can never be reached. We'd all just sit around trying to think of new ways to skew data to what we want to believe, and no progress would be made. We'd be no better than intelligent design people.

Obviously there are immoral people out there, and I wouldn't be surprised if some scientists were trying to profit from this, however they are the exception - not the rule.



Still, CO2 levels have tripled due to the sudden release of previously-sequestered carbon reserves. If the past is the key to the present, then it will affect the climate. The debate is over how much, and what mechanisms will act to either mitigate or extenuate the change.

 

[ordovician]

No I'm not trolling. Let me ask you something. What irrefutable fact leads you to believe that evolution is 100% true.

Alright, well, I'd still like you to answer my question: What part of "evolution" do you take issue with? What exactly do you think is "wrong" about it? You have to tell me before I can adequately address it.

I'd like you to clarify here. Do you think that evolution isn't true, or do you think evolution by natural selection isn't true? That populations of species change with changes in their environment IS proven, end of story. Bacterial resistance to antibiotics is proof enough of that.

There are countless other examples. I study the evolutionary patterns of Cretaceous marine planktonic foraminifera, and have directly observed transitions between species. I've observed it myself. The marine microfossil record is astoundingly complete, and it's a shame that the general population really has no idea about the remarkable evidence for evolution displayed in this record.

Speciation has been observed in oceanic to freshwater stickleback fish in Loberg Lake, Alaska (specifically mutations in the Pitx1 gene leading to reduction of armor plates)... also melanic moths, fruit flies, and modern cattle to name a few.

It is at most a theory still. It has yet to be proven true but it is accepted fact since it seems to be the most likely answer. This is not the scientific method. No where am I not claiming it or anything else to be the answer, I'm just holding that theory and any others to the test of the scientific method. Or at leat I hope I am.

OK, common misconception here. I'm glad you brought this up. There are two definitions of the word "theory." In common usage, theory means an unproven idea, or a hypothesis. In scientific language, a Theory is as close to fact as one can get.

You're really just making unfounded claims. You cannot just say that evolution hasn't been proven true and leave it at that. You have to say why it hasn't. So please, give me specifics.

 

[ordovician]

Scientists are just as suceptible to propoganda as the next person. What you do not mention is WHO is paying the grant. A more realistic timeline is:

1). Scientist writes a proposal with a bias assuming global warming to be true.
2). Scientist submits proposal for funding to an environmental company who also assumes global warming to be true.
3). Scientist with his experiments and interpretation of data proves what he is trying to prove so as to create a relationship where he can get more funding to do similar experiments.

This works both ways. There is no such thing as an unbiased observer. This is the great lesson of post-modernity. No scientist is objective. I'm sorry if it hurts your pride. You are not unbiased. Just from your post, I can see you are biased against "intelligent design." It doesn't matter what data you see. You will interpret data against any such thing due to your presupposition that it cannot be true. I don't even care one way or the other. Just pointing out you are not unbiased.

Yes, you make a point, and I certainly think that all observations must be separated from interpretations. The problem a lot of people have in here is that everyone tries to see things in absolutes. They cannot be OK with having multiple working hypotheses. The argument over global warming in the scientific community is not whether it's happening or if it's not. It's over what the impact of increased CO2 put into the atmosphere by humans will be. There's a difference. Will the earth be able to handle the input, and will essentially nothing happen? What kind of feedback mechanisms will dominate? Will there be small changes, but nothing too bad? Etc?

I am biased against intelligent design because there is no way to gather physical evidence to support any kind of designer. It is untestable and unverifiable. The default scientific viewpoint is one of skepticism, until evidence can be presented that supports the claim. ID has yet to produce any physical evidence of this "designer." The argument that biological systems are designed is based on what they call "intuition," however there is very little difference between the meaning of "intuition" in that sentence and the word "faith." This is why it was shot down several times in court, because it is not science.

 

[kirbyrj]

^^^ You're talking about an "insiginficant" creature and even people who disagree with evolution do not disagree that "micro" evolution takes place all the time with such things as bacteria developing resistances, etc. Here are some problems I have with evolution in general:

1). There simply isn't a complete (and extensive) fossil record demonstrating how humans came to existence out of single-celled organisms or even developed from some form of ape. Even Steven Jay Gould of Harvard described as "the trade secret of paleontology." You have "transitional forms" here and there, but it is not widespread enough to say with any certainty what you're looking at. I'm not denying that there aren't fossils that YOU would consider transitional forms, but there isn't enough widespread evidence to convince me. There are not enough fossils showing gradual change to support evolution. Not to mention, how did lizards sprout wings, etc.? What did a lizard do in transition with half a wing? How could that have been a more resiliant organism?

2). Mathematically speaking, it's impossible given that time and chance would lead to human beings in their current form. By mathmatically impossible, I mean that the probability of what you see around you existing is so slim that for all intents and purposes, it is impossible.

I'm sure I can think of others, but that's just what I have a problem with.

 

[kirbyrj]

I am biased against intelligent design because there is no way to gather physical evidence to support any kind of designer. It is untestable and unverifiable. The default scientific viewpoint is one of skepticism, until evidence can be presented that supports the claim. ID has yet to produce any physical evidence of this "designer." The argument that biological systems are designed is based on what they call "intuition," however there is very little difference between the meaning of "intuition" in that sentence and the word "faith." This is why it was shot down several times in court, because it is not science.

"Science" is faith on many levels. Evolution is on many levels untestable and unverifiable, especially in the sense of the origin of matter.

 

[Dreaz]

No science is not faith. Faith is stubborn and does not change. If I believe I go to heaven, there's nothing in the world that will convince me otherwise.

Science changes when evidence suggests the original hypothesis or assumption is incorrect. Do not equate science with faith; it is not faith. It is extrapolation of what we know through the scientific method and observation. Faith is just what we believe and it does not need to be based on anything at all.

 

[Dreaz]

Not to mention faith is absolute. Science is not absolute but shows us tendencies and patterns. If I drop a pencil from my hand, it will most likely drop to the floor. Science says it will most likely drop to the floor because that's a pattern that's been observed over and over. However, science can not say that the pencil will always fall the floor.

Faith would say the pencil always falls to the floor. Science would say it most likely will fall to the floor. Big difference.

 

[Azhar]

Not to mention faith is absolute. Science is not absolute but shows us tendencies and patterns. If I drop a pencil from my hand, it will most likely drop to the floor. Science says it will most likely drop to the floor because that's a pattern that's been observed over and over. However, science can not say that the pencil will always fall the floor.

Faith would say the pencil always falls to the floor. Science would say it most likely will fall to the floor. Big difference.

Ehhh, not quite. Science is absolute if proven.

If you drop a pencil from your hand and if conditions meet the criteria (gravity, inertia, weight, etc), then it's absolute that your pencil will fall to the floor.

 

[Dreaz]

Ehhh, not quite. Science is absolute if proven.

If you drop a pencil from your hand and if conditions meet the criteria (gravity, inertia, weight, etc), then it's absolute that your pencil will fall to the floor.

But time is always a variable so you can not say absolutely the pencil will always fall to the floor. If you lived in an abstract perfect stable conditioned world where everything was static and 100% the same everytime, then yes you are right. We don't live in that world and science understands this. Faith does not.

 

[Azhar]

You're thinking of the chaos theory. Regardless of how science becomes mathematically sound, shit can happen.

 

[Parmenides]

Science is the pursuit of absolute principles. There area always multiple factors as to whether a pencil will hit the floor. If all factors are accounted for, then you will always know 100% whether it would hit the floor.

Science seems like it's not absolute because we don't know everything. Science is the pursuit of absolute knowledge and truth. It's a method to acquire truth. Science is a means, not an end.

 

[RavenZero]

Science is the pursuit of absolute principles. There area always multiple factors as to whether a pencil will hit the floor. If all factors are accounted for, then you will always know 100% whether it would hit the floor.

Science seems like it's not absolute because we don't know everything. Science is the pursuit of absolute knowledge and truth. It's a method to acquire truth. Science is a means, not an end.

True that...

 

[ordovician]

^^^ You're talking about an "insiginficant" creature and even people who disagree with evolution do not disagree that "micro" evolution takes place all the time with such things as bacteria developing resistances, etc. Here are some problems I have with evolution in general:

Insignificant!? If ANY population of organisms change with changing environments, then ALL organisms do. We're all made of the same stuff. You cannot cherry pick. Ah, the micro/macro fallacy... who defines what a species is? The answer is that humans do. Are polar bears and grizzly bears separate species? Yes? They can breed and produce offspring capable of breeding with either a polar bear or grizzly bear. Are they really different species? See how arbitrary it is? Diversity of life is a spectrum, and we semi-arbitrarily and artificially categorize "different-enough" groups of organisms into separate species. Hence, if species can change into a different species, then any of the other taxonomic groups can change as well.

1). There simply isn't a complete (and extensive) fossil record demonstrating how humans came to existence out of single-celled organisms or even developed from some form of ape.

I've only taken one evolutionary anthropology course, and that was several years ago, but the fossil record is absolutely rife with organisms that share the derived characteristics of humans along with the ancestral characteristics of apes. I'm not exactly sure how you can even make this claim.

Even Steven Jay Gould of Harvard described as "the trade secret of paleontology." You have "transitional forms" here and there, but it is not widespread enough to say with any certainty what you're looking at. I'm not denying that there aren't fossils that YOU would consider transitional forms, but there isn't enough widespread evidence to convince me. There are not enough fossils showing gradual change to support evolution.

Then you're not looking hard enough. I actually had a lot of trouble with my thesis pinning definite identifications on dozens of fossils, because they shared characteristics between two different species or even genera.

Not to mention, how did lizards sprout wings, etc.? What did a lizard do in transition with half a wing? How could that have been a more resiliant organism?

What does a flying squirrel do with half a wing? What did microraptor do with half a wing? You don't need fully powered flight in order to benefit from a pseudo-wing, nor do you need to run in order to benefit from a fin that can carry you out of the water. You also have to understand that structures can evolve for one purpose, then be co-opted for another purpose. A wonderful example is that of the icefish. It uses a "misplaced" copy of a gene that code for a stomach protein to also put that protein in its blood to keep it from freezing in Antarctic waters.

2). Mathematically speaking, it's impossible given that time and chance would lead to human beings in their current form. By mathmatically impossible, I mean that the probability of what you see around you existing is so slim that for all intents and purposes, it is impossible.

I'm sure I can think of others, but that's just what I have a problem with.

Show me the math, then, since I presume you've done it.

I'll instead give you an example in mouse coloration. A mutation occurs in roughly 2 out of every billion DNA sites per mouse genome, which has a total of about 5 billion sites. There are ~1000 sites in an average gene which can be mutated.

1000 sites/gene x 2 mutations/billion sites = 1 mutation per 500,000 individual mice.

There are multiple genes that when mutated can result in different colored mice, but a common one is the MC1R gene, which contains multiple sites that, if it gets a mutation, will turn the mouse black.

Number of sites in MC1R that can be mutated to result in black mouse: 10
Number of copies of MC1R gene: 2

10 sites/gene x 2 genes/mouse x 2 mutations/billion sites = 40 black mice out of 1 billion. Hence, there is a 1 in 25 million chance of a mouse having a black-causing mutation in the MC1R gene.

Hmm... sounds improbable? You have to factor in population size and reproduction rates.

Local mouse populations often number 10,000 to 100,000 individuals (and if we were talking humans or single celled creatures, this would be a lot higher). Mice have two to three litters of 2-5 young/year. Call it 5 babies/female mouse/year.

10,000 individuals (1/2 female) x five offspring per female = 25,000 babies/year

25,000 babies x 1/25 million (the chance of having a black-causing mutation) = 1 black mouse per 1000 years. If you start with a higher population of 100,000 mice, you get a black one every 100 years.

In 1 million years, you'd get 1000 independently-arisen black mice, each of which may have had a slightly better chance of passing on its mutated gene if it conferred an ecological advantage. It turns out that a small population of mice can turn completely black with a small selection coefficient in as little as a few hundred to thousand years.

As you can see, relatively small changes can accumulate quite rapidly in a population's genome, as long as the mutation imparts a selective advantage. This means that due to the sheer numbers of mutation in a genome, it is impossible NOT to have some that confer advantages when environmental factors change.

If you assert that evolution is mathematically impossible, you have to explain why. I keep telling you this. You have to show me your evidence, otherwise you're just spouting off conjecture.

"Science" is faith on many levels. Evolution is on many levels untestable and unverifiable, especially in the sense of the origin of matter.

The theory of natural selection has nothing to do with the origin of matter. It only explains that, once life came into existence, populations have the capability of changing morphology in response to changing environments. Not sure where you were going with this one, honestly.

 

[kirbyrj]

^^^ I'm not going to argue with you. I'm a philosopher by education, not a scientist.

Philosophy tells me that the reason most people cling so hard to evolution isn't so much the science aspect of it. The real reason is that they resist the idea of a "creator" or "intelligent designer" because they do not want to be responsible to it.

I'd be willing to bet that if you accepted as fact that a superior being exists (regardless of other religious implications). You would then allow for contradictory data to stand in your scientific system.

Trust me. I've heard all your arguments before, and quite honestly, I've never been convinced by them. Your argument from the paleontology IS NOT convincing enough. I would expect to see virtually an infininte number of transitional forms. I don't see them.

I use humans as a reference point because they are the dominant species on the planet.

Probability: You're referencing relatively minor mutations...mostly within a single species. I'm talking about a single cell mutating into complex organisms resulting in millions of species of animals/plants.

Once again, I've seen papers on both sides of the argument. I know enough to say that I don't agree with the conclusions of people like Josef Schurz arguing against the "Probability argument of the Creationists."

I still say your biases lead you to accept and reject the significance and/or relevance of data conflicting with your own beliefs. Furthermore, you have "faith" that your bias is correct. That's all I'm saying about science as faith.

 

[ordovician]

^^^ I'm not going to argue with you. I'm a philosopher by education, not a scientist.

Philosophy tells me that the reason most people cling so hard to evolution isn't so much the science aspect of it. The real reason is that they resist the idea of a "creator" or "intelligent designer" because they do not want to be responsible to it.

Well, then you should know that what you just said is a non-sequitor. "Believing" in evolution is not mutually exclusive with the notion of a "creator."

I'd be willing to bet that if you accepted as fact that a superior being exists (regardless of other religious implications). You would then allow for contradictory data to stand in your scientific system.

*scratched head* What!!??? Who is to say I don't!? You are mixing paradigms here. Faith in a superior being has nothing to do with science. They are separate entities, and both can be simultaneously entertained within you, but each must be separate and mutually complimentary. Science cannot, by definition, accept anything on faith. People can. Learn the difference.

Trust me. I've heard all your arguments before, and quite honestly, I've never been convinced by them. Your argument from the paleontology IS NOT convincing enough. I would expect to see virtually an infininte number of transitional forms. I don't see them.

I'm sorry I don't have time to take you into the field and show you. It's all there out there man, whether you want it to be or not. You don't see them because you refuse to even look or listen to the evidence. That's your own prerogative. It's akin to a blind man saying that the sky isn't blue, it's simply based on faith.

Probability: You're referencing relatively minor mutations...mostly within a single species. I'm talking about a single cell mutating into complex organisms resulting in millions of species of animals/plants.

ALL mutations are minor. That example I gave was simply an example of a single allele. Compound that example with any trait an organism exhibits, and you'll see it's nearly impossible for life NOT to change.

I still say your biases lead you to accept and reject the significance and/or relevance of data conflicting with your own beliefs. Furthermore, you have "faith" that your bias is correct. That's all I'm saying about science as faith.

I do not have faith that my "bias" is correct, I have evidence that it is. You do not.

 

[xX_Jack_Carver_Xx]

ordovician...I appreciate your efforts but...

YOU CAN'T ARGUE WITH A DININGROOM TABLE.

I would love to hear your thoughts on how and why evolution has produced subjects in our human species who have the desperate need to deny global warming, evolution, or science itself, especially with such virulance as many do.

Next would be what is the evolutionary "need" to have belief in god or a creator, and the fanatical revolt against any attempt to suggest it may not be.

But as usual here, many pages of wasted electrons have ensued.

 

[kirbyrj]

^^^ Funny, I was thinking the same about you guys .

 

[ordovician]

lol. The entire resistance to global warming, evolution, and science itself is caused by the perception that they detract from the veracity of one's belief system. People who resist evolution do so because they feel that it does not coincide with Genesis. Many of them think that the concept of evolution was devised solely as a way of tearing down their belief system. If God wasn't needed to create all the species, if God isn't needed to explain how the Earth formed, then where does God fit into all of this? God just gets smaller and smaller, and it seems more and more like He isn't there (to them). I can understand their way of thinking perfectly. They are generally incapable of seeing the scientific method in any other light than their own belief system holds; that is, they see it as rigid, unchanging, and attempting to emplace a belief system on it's "followers." The problem with that line of thought is that science is constantly adapting to explain new evidence. Explanations for the way the universe works changes based on new data.

Furthermore, if God made the earth for humans in His image, then Earth is the perfect place for humans to live. It was created the right distance from the sun, has a magnetic field for protection from radiation, has abundant water, and has all the resources humans need for creating civilization. Why, then, should we worry about burning up the oil that God put there for us to burn?

Given these viewpoints I can totally understand the paranoia and resistance to the scientific community. The problem is simply that they have little trust that there are good people out there doing honest scientific research, searching for the Truth through science. What gets me is that if God created everything, then why is it such an issue to study it by starting from a baseline of "I preconceive nothing." The physical world is the physical world, and the truth is the truth, and the scientific method is the ONLY way you can find it in the physical world.

The problem is not with their beliefs; I don't care what people believe. The problem is with the inability to entertain a dualistic view of the universe, one that incorporates both their religion and their ability to analyze God's physical creation (e.g. science), yet keeps them cognitively separate. It's this bizarre notion of mutual exclusion that is the issue. Why can't you simply find a way to accept both?

 

[kirbyrj]

I'm not against science. Once again, post-modernism is in play here. You can NEVER get beyond your own existence to view yourself, your surroundings, your biases, etc. to view any set of data without first interpreting it.

The scientific method is great. I have no problems with it. I am not afraid of it. The problem is that scientists (in general) think that they can overcome this bias and observe, record, and interpret data without bias. This is not true.

In terms of evolution, I see a fossil record with nowhere near enough transitional forms to encompass Darwinism. You see enough. We are both looking at the same (or similar) data, but our presuppositions and biases are causing us to look differently at the same information. I see mathmatical probability being extremely unlikely/impossible that a single cell entity would develop into the billions of species on the earth today. You see the same data and come to a different conclusion.

You are correct in that earlier I was "confusing" evolutionary development of species with a more all-encompassing Big Bang evolution dealing with the origin of matter, etc., and I was wrong to do so.

At the end of the day, what you proclaim to be FACT, is only the biased observations and interpretations of data. At some point, you believe, that your interpretation of the data is closer to the truth than mine is, and I believe that mine is. No worries. I think we can all still be friends even if we disagree .

 

[Climber]

Alright, well, I'd still like you to answer my question: What part of "evolution" do you take issue with? What exactly do you think is "wrong" about it? You have to tell me before I can adequately address it.

We're getting off topic here but I feel that this thread has gone far beyond that now. My whole point was that yes scientists and others in academia have preconceived biases when it comes to their studies or things they have been taught. What issues I may have with it have no bearing on the initial argument. If you must know I'll just point out that one example is the incomplete fossil record. Regardless of the marine layers of fossil records many of which I'm familiar with is the convenient lack of fossil records for many of the modern species today, humans included. I'm not trying to soft argue for ID or anything. I'm just looking at things from my pov and I see holes. Now whether those holes are due to my own ignorance on the subject, which it may very well be seeing as I'm not by any stretch of the imagination a scientist, or because they really are there and I'm far enough removed to see them without bias who is to say. The only thing we can do is look at those areas and see if they can be adequately explained with evidence and facts or if it is one of those areas where the evidence isn't fully developed and that is all we can say on that matter. But I'm sure that this thread is derailed enough without me postulating a plethora of other questions that don't belong on a hardware enthusiasts forum. .

I'd like you to clarify here. Do you think that evolution isn't true, or do you think evolution by natural selection isn't true? That populations of species change with changes in their environment IS proven, end of story. Bacterial resistance to antibiotics is proof enough of that.

You're right populations do change within species; however, looking at the LTEE experiment the molecular evolution theory at first believed isn't being witnessed in the changes of the E Coli strains. Now what this means in the long term remains to be seen, but the point being is that thee are still holes in the evolutionary argument and records that have yet to be answered completely. This may change as molecular evolution changes as more evidence emerges and gives us a pattern we can see and replicate. But at this current juncture I still see questions that need answering. I'm long removed from years as a Geology and Marine Biology major. My mom is the retired director of public health for a major California county so science has always been somewhat of a conversational topic around the table; however, I'm loathe to admit that i don't follow or keep up with it as much as I used to due to my career change and other volunteer work.

There are countless other examples. I study the evolutionary patterns of Cretaceous marine planktonic foraminifera, and have directly observed transitions between species. I've observed it myself. The marine microfossil record is astoundingly complete, and it's a shame that the general population really has no idea about the remarkable evidence for evolution displayed in this record.

I'm more familiar with the Burgess Shale deposits as that is where I spent a summer field study which I believe is the foremost deposit of marine soft shell fossils from the either the Cretaceous or the Cambrian periods. One of the things I do remember studying was the cyclical nature of the fossil records and the lack of understanding as to what caused these. One of the reasons was climate change of course but I don't believe anything was ever determined. I should start looking this up before I start getting things wrong or spouting old information, but maybe you're more familiar with this as I am.

As far as the general population being excited over species transitions in trilobites or marrella no one really cares outside of scientists. It would be like trying to explain the finding of Zama to someone outside my field. No one would really care. However, if abundant evidence of humans ancestors were found I think more people would be like really whoa that is cool since it directly relates to them. But no one really cares about a woolly mammoth found in Siberia unfortunately...

 

[TOOL1075]

At the end of the day, what you proclaim to be FACT, is only the biased observations and interpretations of data. At some point, you believe, that your interpretation of the data is closer to the truth than mine is, and I believe that mine is.

I'm not going to argue with you. I'm a philosopher by education, not a scientist.

you don't say???

lol

 

[ianken]

Here's a good post from the Angry Astronomer on why this is much ado about nothing. Unless you fail at science.

http://angryastronomer.blogspot.com/2009/11/sesame-street-logic.html