Posts Tagged ‘global warming’

Why I Deny Global Warming, by David Deming

Church of Darwin, Science, Uncategorized, Unexplained Artifact | Posted by Chris Parker
Oct 23 2011

by David Deming, Oct. 19, 2011

I’m a denier for several reasons. There is no substantive evidence that the planet has warmed significantly or that any significant warming will occur in the future. If any warming does occur, it likely will be concentrated at higher latitudes and therefore be beneficial. Climate research has largely degenerated into pathological science, and the coverage of global warming in the media is tendentious to the point of being fraudulent. Anyone who is an honest and competent scientist must be a denier.

Have you ever considered how difficult it is to take the temperature of the planet Earth? What temperature will you measure? The air? The surface of the Earth absorbs more than twice as much incident heat from the Sun than the air. But if you measure the temperature of the surface, what surface are you going to measure? The solid Earth or the oceans?

There is twice as much water as land on Earth. If you decide to measure water temperature, at what depth will you take the measurements? How will the time scale on which the deep ocean mixes with the shallow affect your measurements? And how, pray tell, will you determine what the average water temperature was for the South Pacific Ocean a hundred years ago? How will you combine air, land, and sea temperature measurements? Even if you use only meteorological measurements of air temperature, how will you compensate for changes in latitude, elevation, and land use?

Determining a mean planetary temperature is not straightforward, but an extremely complicated problem. Even the best data are suspect. Anthony Watts and his colleagues have surveyed 82.5 percent of stations in the U.S. Historical Climatology Network. They have found – shockingly – that over 70 percent of these stations are likely to be contaminated by errors greater than 2 deg C [3.6 deg F]. Of the remaining stations, 21.5 percent have inherent errors greater than 1 deg C. The alleged degree of global warming over the past 150 years is less than 1 deg C.

Yet even in a technologically advanced country like the US, the inherent error in over 90 percent of the surveyed meteorological stations is greater than the putative signal. And these errors are not random, but systematically reflect a warming bias related to urbanization. Watts has documented countless instances of air temperature sensors located next to air conditioning vents or in the middle of asphalt parking lots.

A typical scenario is that a temperature sensor that was in the middle of a pasture a hundred years ago is now surrounded by a concrete jungle. Urbanization has been a unidirectional process. It is entirely plausible – even likely – that all of the temperature rise that has been inferred from the data is an artifact that reflects the growth of urban heat islands.

The “denier” is portrayed as a person who refuses to accept the plain evidence of his senses. But in fact it is the alarmist who doesn’t know what they are talking about. The temperature of the Earth and how it has varied over the past 150 years is poorly constrained. The person who thinks otherwise does so largely because they have no comprehension of the science. Most of these people have never done science or thought about the inherent difficulties and uncertainties involved.

And what is “global warming” anyway? As long ago as the fifth century BC, Socrates pointed out that intelligible definitions are a necessary precursor to meaningful discussions. The definition of the term “global warming” shifts with the context of the discussion. If you deny global warming, then you have denied the existence of the greenhouse effect, a reproducible phenomenon that can be studied analytically in the laboratory.

But if you oppose political action, then global warming metamorphoses into a nightmarish and speculative planetary catastrophe. Coastal cities sink beneath a rising sea, species suffer from wholesale extinctions, and green pastures are turned into deserts of choking hot sand.

In fact, so-called “deniers” are not “deniers” but skeptics. Skeptics do not deny the existence of the greenhouse effect. Holding all other factors constant, the mean planetary air temperature ought to rise as the atmosphere accumulates more anthropogenic CO2. Christopher Monckton recently reviewed the pertinent science and concluded that a doubling of CO2 should result in a temperature increase of about 1 deg C. If this temperature increase mirrors those in the geologic past, most of it will occur at high latitudes. These areas will become more habitable for man, plants, and other animals. Biodiversity will increase. Growing seasons will lengthen.

Why is this a bad thing?

Any temperature increase over 1 deg C for a doubling of CO2 must come from a positive feedback from water vapor. Water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas in Earth’s atmosphere, and warm air holds more water than cold air. The theory is that an increased concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere will lead to a positive feedback that amplifies the warming from CO2 by as much as a factor of three to five. But this is nothing more that speculation. Water vapor also leads to cloud formation. Clouds have a cooling effect. At the current time, no one knows if the feedback from water vapor will be positive or negative.

Global warming predictions cannot be tested with mathematical models. It is impossible to validate computer models of complex natural systems. The only way to corroborate such models is to compare model predictions with what will happen in a hundred years. And one such result by itself won’t be significant because of the possible compounding effects of other variables in the climate system. The experiment will have to repeated over several one-hundred year cycles. In other words, the theory of catastrophic global warming cannot be tested or empirically corroborated in a human time frame.

It is hardly conclusive to argue that models are correct because they have reproduced past temperatures. I’m sure they have. General circulation models have so many degrees of freedom that it is possible to endlessly tweak them until the desired result is obtained. Hindsight is always 20-20. This tells us exactly nothing about a model’s ability to accurately predict what will happen in the future.

The entire field of climate science and its coverage in the media is tendentious to the point of being outright fraudulent. Why is it that every media report on CO2 – an invisible gas – is invariably accompanied by a photograph of a smokestack emitting particulate matter? Even the cover of Al Gore’s movie, An Inconvenient Truth, shows a smokestack.

Could it be that its difficult to get people worked up about an invisible, odorless gas that is an integral component of the photosynthetic cycle? A gas that is essential to most animal and plant life on Earth? A gas that is emitted by their own bodies through respiration? So you have to deliberately mislead people by showing pictures of smoke to them. Showing one thing when you’re talking about another is fraud. If the case for global warming alarmism is so settled, so conclusive, so irrefutable…why is it necessary to repeatedly resort to fraud?

A few years ago it was widely reported that the increased concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would cause poison ivy to grow faster. But of course carbon dioxide causes almost all plants to grow faster. And nearly all of these plants have beneficial human uses. Carbon dioxide fertilizes hundreds or thousands of human food sources. More CO2 means trees grow faster. So carbon dioxide promotes reforestation and biodiversity. Its good for the environment. But none of this was reported.

Instead, the media only reported that global warming makes poison ivy grow faster. And this is but one example of hundreds or thousands of such misleading reports. If sea ice in the Arctic diminishes, it is cited as irrefutable proof of global warming. But if sea ice in the Antarctic increases, it is ignored. Even cold weather events are commonly invoked as evidence for global warming. People living in the future will look back and wonder how we could have been so delusional.

For the past few years I have remained silent concerning the Climategate emails. But what they revealed is what many of us already knew was going on: global warming research has largely degenerated into what is known as pathological science, a “process of wishful data interpretation.” When I testified before the US Senate in 2006, I stated that a major climate researcher told me in 1995 that “we have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.”

The existence and global nature of the Medieval Warm Period had been substantiated by literally hundreds of research articles published over decades. But it had to be erased from history for ideological reasons. A few years later the infamous “hockey stick” appeared. The “hockey stick” was a revisionist attempt to rewrite the temperature history of the last thousand years. It has been discredited as being deeply flawed.

In one Climategate email, a supposed climate scientist admitted to “hiding the decline.” In other words, hiding data that tended to disprove his ideological agenda. Another email described how alarmists would try to keep critical manuscripts from being published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. One of them wrote, we’ll “keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!” Gee. If the climate science that validates global warming is so unequivocal, why is it necessary to work behind the scenes to suppress dissent? You “doth protest too much.”

As described in my book, Science and Technology in World History: The Ancient World and Classical Civilization, systematic science began with the invocation of naturalism by Greek philosophers and Hippocratic physicians c. 600-400 BC. But the critical attitude adopted by the Greeks was as important as naturalism. Students were not only allowed to criticize their teachers, but were encouraged to do so. From its beginnings in Greek natural philosophy, science has been an idealistic and dispassionate search for truth. As Plato explained, anyone who could point out a mistake “shall carry off the palm, not as an enemy, but as a friend.”

This is one reason that scientists enjoy so much respect. The public assumes that a scientist’s pursuit of truth is unencumbered by political agendas.

But science does not come easy to men. “Science,” George Sarton reminded us, “is a joykiller.” The proper conduct of science requires a high degree of intellectual discipline and rigor. Scientists are supposed to use multiple working hypotheses and sort through these by the processes of corroboration and falsification. The most valuable evidence is that which tends to falsify or disprove a theory. A scientist, by the very definition of his activity, must be skeptical. A scientist engaged in a dispassionate search for truth elevates the critical – he does not suppress it. Knowledge begins with skepticism and ends with conceit.

Finally, I’m happy to be known as a “denier” because the label of “denier” says nothing about me, but everything about the person making the charge. Scientific theories are never denied or believed, they are only corroborated or falsified. Scientific knowledge, by its very nature, is provisional and subject to revision.

The provisional nature of scientific knowledge is a necessary consequence of the epistemological basis of science. Science is based on observation. We never have all the data. As our body of data grows, our theories and ideas must necessarily evolve. Anyone who thinks scientific knowledge is final and complete must necessarily endorse as a corollary the absurd proposition that the process of history has stopped.

A scientific theory cannot be “denied.” Only a belief can be denied. The person who uses the word “denier” thus reveals that they hold global warming as a belief, not a scientific theory. Beliefs are the basis of revealed religion. Revelations cannot be corroborated or studied in the laboratory, so religions are based on dogmatic beliefs conservatively held. Religions tend to be closed systems of belief that reject criticism. But the sciences are open systems of knowledge that welcome criticism. I’m a scientist, and therefore I must happily confess to being a denier.

October 19, 2011

David Deming [send him mail] is a geophysicist, associate professor of arts and sciences at the University of Oklahoma, and author of the books Science and Technology in World History, Vols. 1 & 2.

Copyright © 2011 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

The Top 12 Science Stories of 2010 For Christians/Creationists

Amusing?, Church of Darwin, Religious, s8int.com, Science, Sophistication of Ancestors, The Flood of Noah, Uncategorized, Unexplained Artifact | Posted by Chris Parker
Jan 07 2011

by Chris Parker, Copyright 2010

2010 came in like a lion with a major earthquake in Chile and went out with snow like lamb’s wool covering many parts of the United States. So much for global warming?

More on that later.

There really is no way to quantitatively select the top 10 or 12 science stories that were the most important to the cause of belief in God, special creation and Biblical truths in 2010. This is quite obviously a subjective exercise. No real attempt has been made to here to prioritize among these choices either. If last years list is any indication, we’ll get some argument and some suggestions-some of which will be printable.

At s8int.com, we believe and fully accept the Biblical account for creation. That faith and belief helps us form our world view and our view of science. We’ve always assumed that true, honest and objective science would support the Biblical account and God’s place in the universe—and it has.

The world’s preeminent Atheist, Richard Dawkins, made the following observation in his book; The Blind Watchmaker’

“An atheist before Darwin could have said, following Hume: “I have no explanation for complex biological design. All I know is that God isn’t a good explanation, so we must wait and hope that somebody comes up with a better one.” I can’t help feeling that such a position, though logically sound, would have left one feeling pretty unsatisfied, and that although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”

It’s been a tough decade for Darwinism, though and 2010 was no different. It continues to be the case that the more science learns about the universe and our place in it the less tenable is the Darwinist faith. Despite the hard work and dedication of Darwinists, a new Gallup poll (reported in December of 2010) shows that only 16% of Americans subscribe to the view that “Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in the process.”

Photo:Stein interviews Dawkins in “Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed!”

Things have gotten so bad for Darwinists that Richard Dawkins now says that he could accept the notion that “super-intelligent aliens” are responsible for creating life on earth and that this would explain why life seems designed. (Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed , 2008

Dawkins doesn’t even seem to realize that this illogical and contradictory position puts him squarely back in the pre-Darwin; anything or anyone but God camp! The very position he described as being “logically sound” but “intellectually unsatisfying”!

The Joy of Ignorance? What group has tried to turn their own ignorance into a virtue as aggressively as the Darwinists? Remember “vestigial organs”? Basically science was ignorant about the function of certain “organs” and so they declared them functionless, leftovers from the evolutionary process.

They asserted that God wouldn’t have created useless organs and that ergo; there was no God!

Unfortunately for this theory, science could not maintain its ignorance for long; the list of supposedly vestigial organs in humans has gone from approximately 180 in 1890 to arguably, none in 1999. (Bergman, Jerry, “Do any vestigial organs exist in humans?”, Journal of Creation 14(2):95–98, August 2000)

Dawkins and other atheists also trumpeted “Junk DNA” as proof that there was no God. God they reasoned, would not have created useless, functionless, “junk” DNA (non-coding DNA ) that took up so much of the space in the genome. They fairly chortled about it. Dawkins said;

“Once again, creationists might spend some earnest time speculating on why the Creator should bother to litter genomes with untranslated pseudogenes and junk tandem repeat DNA.” (Dawkins: The Information Challenge)

Time and additional scientific knowledge and understanding vindicated God as the creator and showed that Dawkins and other evolution believing critics were simply speaking from a very deep well of ignorance. It turns out, once again that science’s (and Dawkin’s) own lack of knowledge was the problem here, not God’s creative abilities:

” “The findings, from a project involving hundreds of scientists in 11 countries and detailed in 29 papers being published today, confirm growing suspicions that the stretches of “junk DNA” flanking hardworking genes are not junk at all. But the study goes further, indicating for the first time that the vast majority of the 3 billion “letters” of the human genetic code are busily toiling at an array of previously invisible tasks.” (Washington Post, July 14, 2007 Intricate Toiling Found In Nooks of DNA Once Believed to Stand Idle
)

Finally, Darwin admitted that it was difficult to conceive of how an organ as complicated as they eye could have evolved (although he believed it did). Michael Behe, an architect of “intelligent design” deemed the eye irreducibly complex; in other words it had to be the result of a deliberate design rather than evolution because it would have been useless without all of its parts being fully functional.

Evolutionists have deemed the eye to be one of evolutions biggest mistakes because it appears to them to be wired backwards. In 2010 it became clear once again that ignorance on the part of atheists and Darwinists was the problem. A study showed that the design of the eye leads to better vision and that in fact its design should be copied in order to make better optical machines.

This is a principle Christians can depend on; if evolutionists think that something God created is imperfect;- simply wait until their ignorance dissipates. “Let God be true and every man a liar!” Romans 3:4

We combed through; Discovery News, CreationEvolutionHeadlines, NewScientist, s8int.com/WordPress and other sources to compile news stories of interest. Here’s our list of the top science stories of 2010 for Christians/creationists.


1)Universal Health Scare: Study Locates Conscious Minds Locked in Appearance of “Vegetative State And; Atheist Doctors More Likely to Kill You!

“Distressing” is not an adequate word to describe a study by Cambridge University neuroscientist Adrian M. Owen that proves that many people in supposedly vegetative states actually are quite aware of what is happening around them and have opinions and views about it all. There may be thousands of such people in the U.S. alone.

The implications are hard to bear and yet demand action. Can you imagine anything much worse than being completely unable to communicate with others and yet affected by them? Anyone who has suffered an injury that impairs even a small function knows how frustrating that can be. But this is almost like being buried alive. With this difference: the patient is aware of people’s conversations and can, at least in his mind, respond. But no one in the presence of such a person–until now–has found a way to “listen” and therefore to converse.

This study adds force to the anti-euthanasia arguments made in cases like that of Terri Schiavo. It also calls in the name of human compassion for greater efforts to engage such conscious minds encased in unresponsive bodies and to give their lives some scope for vigorous interaction. It also calls for greater scientific and technological efforts to break the physical chains binding such people.

A colleague of Dr. Owens sees a number of immediate practical uses of the new way of communicating with conscious, but immobilized persons. “This technique could be used to address important clinical questions. For example, patients who are aware, but cannot move or speak, could be asked if they are feeling any pain, allowing doctors to decide when painkillers should be administered.”

But another urgent need is to find ways to communicate more directly than is possible now. In their study, the Cambridge team used MRI technology, which is expensive and obviously hard to arrange on any regular basis. Posted by Bruce Chapman on February 3, 2010 4:03 PM Discovery News

Atheist Doctors More Likely to End Your Life–ScienceDaily (Aug. 26, 2010)

Atheist or agnostic doctors are almost twice as willing to take decisions that they think will hasten the end of a very sick patient’s life as doctors who are deeply religious, suggests research published online in the Journal of Medical Ethics.


And doctors with a strong faith are less likely to discuss this type of treatment with the patient concerned, the research shows. The findings are based on a postal survey of more than 8500 UK doctors, spanning a wide range of specialties, which was designed to see what influence religious belief — or lack of it — had on end of life care…. ScienceDaily


2)Darwinian Reversals

“There is a wide consensus among paleontologists that birds are the descendants of theropod dinosaurs”, according to Wikipedia and other Darwinist sources. This idea is a new tenet of the Darwinist faith and the truth is the acceptance of the idea has never really been as much of a consensus as advertized. As we’ve noted many times, “Storrs Olson, Curator of Birds at the Smithsonian and evolutionist himself proclaimed that “a cadre of “zealots” were trying to “actively promulgate the theropod dinosaur origin of birds theory in concert with Nature and National Geo”… Quote Story

An article published in 2009 in Medical Hypotheses noted: Some “Non-Avian Feathered Dinosaurs May Have Been Birds.” Spend a few minutes working out that headline’s meaning. In an article published in PhysOrg, a different group of evolutionists at OSU made a complete reversal of the Darwinist tenet by claiming that the evidence showed that dinosaurs evolved from birds!” Commentary by: CreationEvolutionHeadlines

“Feb 9, 2010 — Birds evolved from dinosaurs, we are often told. That’s backwards, reply some scientists at Oregon State University. According to PhysOrg, the recently-published bi-plane model study of Microraptor gui (01/29/2010) demonstrates that theropod dinosaurs did not sprout wings and fly; instead, they became flightless after their bird ancestors came down from the trees.

Their response demonstrates how the same evidence can be spun different ways. They are adamant about it: “The weight of the evidence is now suggesting that not only did birds not descend from dinosaurs,” John Ruben of OSU said, “but that some species now believed to be dinosaurs may have descended from birds.” He’s glad to see a breakthrough from the conventional wisdom. “This issue isn’t resolved at all. There are just too many inconsistencies with the idea that birds had dinosaur ancestors, and this newest study adds to that.” CreationEvolutionHeadlines

From Soup to Nuts! One of the oldest tenets of Darwinism is that life began in a “primordial soup”. However, “the ‘soup’ theory has been overturned in a pioneering paper in BioEssays which claims it was the Earth’s chemical energy, from hydrothermal vents on the ocean floor, which kick-started early life.” ScienceDaily

The truth is that absent an acceptance of the Genesis account science has no idea how dead chemicals became living. There are literally hundreds of competing ”scientific” theories regarding life’s origin, as we covered in our story:. “When It Comes to Explanations for the Origin of Life, Genesis Has the Quality; So, Science Comes At You With Quantity

Neanderthal Now One of Us. Neanderthals and Cro-Magnon have long been enlisted by the Darwinists as a caveman/primitive man proof of the truth of the evolution of man from lower forms. They were successful enough that even some Christians invented “pre-Adamic” man to try to help the Bible out.

As late as last year some scientists were still claiming that man and Neanderthal never interbred; that they couldn’t speak, that they had no language, argued over whether they buried their dead, claimed that they only ate meat because they weren’t smart enough to cook vegetables, etc. etc. (Cro-Magnon was rehabilitated some years ago).

Now, it’s all changed. It’s been reversed…

An analysis of “Neanderthal” DNA indicated that their DNA matched “modern” man’s DNA to 99.97%. Since the analysis was only of 60% of the genome the actual match might be closer. That awaits further study. It’s worth noting that each of our own DNA is a match to our neighbor’s to 99.999%.

Scientists Lied and Real Neanderthals Died! Neanderthal DNA 99.97% Identical to that of Evolutionary Scientist’s!

Neanderthals Admired Beauty 01/10/2010
Jan 10, 2010 — This may be the last evidence needed to debunk the image of Neanderthals as dim-witted brutes: they wore make-up. CreationEvolutionHeadlines

    Humans and Neanderthals Are One 05/08/2010

“May 08, 2010 — If Neanderthals bred with modern humans, they are one and the same species. That must be the case according to the most widely-accepted definition of a species: those who can breed and produce fertile offspring. The news media are abuzz with Science magazine’s cover story this week, “The Neanderthal Genome.” Most anthropologists are now accepting the genetic evidence for human-Neanderthal mixing of DNA, and that there are remnants of the Neanderthal genome walking the earth in living human beings. CreationEvolutionHeadlines

Science Daily announced, “Neandertals ‘Hardly Differed at All’ from Modern Humans.”

Fossil Ida:

The last bit of dirt was kicked over Ida, the fossil that evolutionists claimed was going to change everything. ‘Missing Link’ Fossil Was Not Human Ancestor as Claimed, Anthropologists Say ScienceDaily (Mar. 3, 2010)


3)Macro Evolution’s Evolving, Non-Evolving Problem The trade secret of paleontology might very well be the lack of transitional fossils..(Gould); but the Darwin family secret is the long list of supposedly millions of years old fossils which are indistigushable from their living counterparts. Two of those articles are linked here:

Pelican Fossil Poses Evolutionary Riddle; Why, They Haven’t Evolved, Not Even a Little

“Oh What A Tangled Web We Weave, When At First We Practice to Deceive”–Alleged 165 Million Year Old Spider Looks Just Like 165 Day Old Spider


4)
Evolutionists Blind, Ignorant, Criticism of the Design of the Eye Proves to be Short Sighted and Wrong. (Will Science Teachers Continue to Constrict Their Pupils with This Kind of Teaching?)

Dawkins is not great. First, as head atheist he jumped on the; vestigial organs prove there is no God train, only to see it derailed; then onto “junk DNA” and finally to the “backwards designed” eye.

A 2007 Article entitled” Evolution’s Greatest Mistakes” claimed that the eye was an example of “flawed evolution”.

“The most famous flaw is found in vertebrate eyes. Their light-sensing structure, the retina, is wired up back-to-front.) NewScientist

In May, commenting in an editorial about a 2007 German study that found that the eye is wired backwards, purposely –or at least to the benefit of the eye said:

“IT LOOKS wrong, but the strange, “backwards” structure of the vertebrate retina actually improves vision.”
NewScientist went on to note that creationists have defended the eye design by claiming that the backwards design actually enhances vision:

“…creationists have argued that the backwards retina clearly has no problems providing vertebrates with excellent vision – and even that its structure enhances vision.

“This week, a study by (non-creationist) neurophysicists in Israel has found just that (see “Optical fibre cells transform our weird, ‘backward’ retinas”). Their simulations showed that Müller cells, which support and nourish the neurons overlying the retina’s light-sensitive layer, also collect, filter and refocus light, before delivering it to the light sensors to make images clearer.”

You have to love this defensive quote from NewScientist;

“The findings do not mean the creationists have a point – although they may well quote the study”.

According to the authors of the research paper, the findings of the study could lead to better designed optical equipment and cameras. So much for bad design.


5)Not A Grain of Truth to Science’s Claim That “Primitive Man” Domesticated Food Crops: Animals Refuse to eat Genetically Modified Foods..

It’s the belief of evolutionary scientists that all the domesticated grains that we eat; grains like rice, corn, oats, wheat and barley, were created by deliberate cultivation over hundreds or even thousands of years by our primitive ancestors. They would have needed the ability to work tirelessly and purposefully for a period of generations on crops that would have no food value for them until the projects were created; all eons before Gregor Mendel developed prinicples of genetic transmision of inherited traits.

This story is hard enough to believe but here’s another problem. If man genetically modified all the food crops we mentioned; why were cows and pigs eating them? And why do they have a problem with the New genetically modified foods? Isn’t the same agent, man responsible for the old GM crops as well as the new?

Clearly not, the crops we’ve known for thousands of years were created by God—not man. When Adam was punished he was told that he would have to earn a living by the sweat of his brow, he was meant to plant and harvest crops–the same crops that Cain brought as a failed offering to God.

Animals didn’t have a problem with the former, but the do have a problem with the latter. Article


6) Why Paleontology is Not “Science”; When It Comes to Giant Pterosaur Flight, Science Believes Very Strongly Both Ways!

In the course of a year’s time paleontologists made the bold statement that pterosaurs couldn’t fly; only to have another study claim that they were the greatest flyers ever!

Any discipline that claims two mutually exclusive things are both true in that short a period of time can’t be called a science. This is the stuff they want to teach your kids. Article


7)
Research Indicates Ancient Civilization Thrived Until Ocean Submerged It Beneath the Persian Gulf “About” 8 Thousand Years Ago: Do You Noah What That Reminds Us Of?

An ancient civilization the size of Great Britain was located under the Persian Gulf. The civilization was “drowned” thousands of years ago.


8) Science Daily Article: Liberals and Atheists Smarter? Intelligent People Have Values Novel in Human Evolutionary History, Study Finds.”

Unfortunately, we’re not smart enough to comment on this article. We didn’t understand it. It didn’t make any sense to us…. Article


9) Human Genome “Infinitely More Complex” Than Expected 04/05/2010 “April 05,

2010 — Ten years after the Human Genome Project was completed, now we know: biology is “orders of magnitude” more complicated than scientists expected. So wrote Erika Check Hayden in Nature News March 31 and in the April 1 issue of Nature.

An air of daunting complexity haunts the article. The Human Genome Project was one of the great scientific investigations of the end of the 20th century. Some compared it to the Manhattan Project or the Apollo program. It used to be tedious, painstaking work to read the sequence of DNA letters.

Now, deciphering genomes is a matter of course. But with the rush of data coming from genomes of everything from yeast to Neanderthals, one thing has become clear: “as sequencing and other new technologies spew forth data, the complexity of biology has seemed to grow by orders of magnitude,” Hayden wrote.

…..Hayden acknowledged that the “junk DNA” paradigm has been blown to smithereens. “Just one decade of post-genome biology has exploded that view,” she said, speaking of the notion that gene regulation was a straightforward, linear process – genes coding for regulator proteins that control transcription. “Biology’s new glimpse at a universe of non-coding DNA – what used to be called ‘junk’ DNA – has been fascinating and befuddling.”

If it’s junk, why would the human body decode 74% to 93% of it? The plethora of small RNAs produced by these non-coding regions, and how they interact with each other and with DNA, was completely unexpected when the project began.

These realizations are dissipating some of the early naïveté of the Human Genome Project. Planners predicted we would “unravel the mysteries behind everything from evolution to disease origins.” Cures for cancer were envisioned. We would trace the path of evolution through the genetic code. That was so 1990s.

Joshua Plotkin, a mathematical biologist at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, said, “Just the sheer existence of these exotic regulators suggests that our understanding about the most basic things – such as how a cell turns on and off – is incredibly naïve.” “ CreationEvolutionHeadlines


10) Evolution as “Scientific Literacy” Dropped by NSB; Sets Off Firestorm 04/11/2010
April 11, 2010 — Can you be called scientifically literate if you deny that humans evolved from lower animals? What if you deny the universe began with an explosion? American students have typically scored low on those questions, leading to charges that they are scientifically illiterate compared to other countries in Europe and Asia.

But now, the National Science Board (NSB) decided to drop those hot-button questions in the 2010 edition of Science and Engineering Indicators, a biennial compilation of the state of global science, on the grounds that they don’t accurately reflect students’ knowledge of science, but rather their beliefs. The decision set off angry protests in certain quarters.

Yudhijit Bhattacharjee reported on this issue in the April 9 issue of Science. He quoted Joshua Rosenau of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) calling it “intellectual malpractice” to discuss scientific literacy without mentioning evolution. “It downplays the controversy,” he said. Jon Miller, a science literacy researcher at Michigan State, conducted the survey until 2001. As the one who added the survey question in the first place, he thinks the current board is making a big mistake.

“If a person says that the earth really is at the center of the universe, … how in the world would you call that person scientifically literate?” he asked. Bhattacharjee said, “those struggling to keep evolution in the classroom say the omission could hurt their efforts.”

But the NSB defended its decision to drop the “value-charged” question on evolution as a misleading indicator:…… CreationEvolutionHeadlines


11) The Great Global Warming Collapse

“In 2007, the most comprehensive report to date on global warming, issued by the respected United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, made a shocking claim: The Himalayan glaciers could melt away as soon as 2035.

These glaciers provide the headwaters for Asia’s nine largest rivers and lifelines for the more than one billion people who live downstream. Melting ice and snow would create mass flooding, followed by mass drought. The glacier story was reported around the world. Last December, a spokesman for the World Wildlife Fund, an environmental pressure group, warned, “The deal reached at Copenhagen will have huge ramifications for the lives of hundreds of millions of people who are already highly vulnerable due to widespread poverty.” To dramatize their country’s plight, Nepal’s top politicians strapped on oxygen tanks and held a cabinet meeting on Mount Everest.

But the claim was rubbish, and the world’s top glaciologists knew it. It was based not on rigorously peer-reviewed science but on an anecdotal report by the WWF itself. When its background came to light on the eve of Copenhagen, Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the IPCC, shrugged it off. But now, even leading scientists and environmental groups admit the IPCC is facing a crisis of credibility that makes the Climategate affair look like small change.” Globe and Mail


12)Bible Possibly Written Centuries Earlier, Text Suggests
Clara Moskowitz
LiveScience Staff Writer
Jan 15 2010
“Scientists have discovered the earliest known Hebrew writing – an inscription dating from the 10th century B.C., during the period of King David’s reign.
The breakthrough could mean that portions of the Bible were written centuries earlier than previously thought. (The Bible’s Old Testament is thought to have been first written down in an ancient form of Hebrew.)
Until now, many scholars have held that the Hebrew Bible originated in the 6th century B.C., because Hebrew writing was thought to stretch back no further. But the newly deciphered Hebrew text is about four centuries older, scientists announced this month.

“It indicates that the Kingdom of Israel already existed in the 10th century BCE and that at least some of the biblical texts were written hundreds of years before the dates presented in current research,” said Gershon Galil, a professor of Biblical Studies at the University of Haifa in Israel, who deciphered the ancient text.” Article

Top 12 Science Stories for Creationists/Believers of 2009

Weathermen Cool to Global Warming: Forecast Continued Storms for Global Warming Research?

s8int.com, Science | Posted by Chris Parker
Apr 13 2010

A survey released by researchers at George Mason University found that more than a quarter of television weathercasters agree with the statement “Global warming is a scam,” and nearly two-thirds believe that, if warming is occurring, it is caused “mostly by natural changes.”

A Gallup Poll indicates that about half the general public believes that the global warming threat has been greatly exaggerated according to Kolbert, a climate change “believer”. Maybe half the population remembers the widespread fear (of scientists) and dire consequences predicted of global cooling in the 1960′s and 1970′s (a new ice age; ahhhh!)

571 weatherman were polled by the George Mason pollsters (about half actual meteorologists). Why are weathermen/meteorologists as a group so skeptical of climate change science? Maybe they understand that the science has its limitations. They know that they get mail when they predict rain and it remains dry or if they predict sunny weather and it rains. They know how hard it is to always be right when delivering a forecast just 10 days in the future.

It’s gotten very bad for climate change scientists like Phil Jones, Director of the Climate Research Unit at a prominent English University, who was at the center of the “scandal” that ensued after thousands of emails were linked indicating that climate scientists in some cases were altering data, or deliberately skewing data, ignoring “bad” data and not playing fair with scientists holding opposing or divergent views.

The whole man made climate change enterprise appears to be on the brink of collapse along with Phil Jonesas described in this full length article in Spiegel Magazine.

Spiegel Magazine Article.

Climategate: Global Warming Might Not be Man Made-But the Data May Be

Church of Darwin, Science, Uncategorized, Unexplained Artifact | Posted by Chris Parker
Nov 30 2009

from The Sunday Times November 29, 2009

Story 1
The great climate change science scandal
Leaked emails have revealed the unwillingness of climate change scientists to engage in a proper debate with the sceptics who doubt global warming

Jonathan Leake, Environment Editor

The storm began with just four cryptic words. “A miracle has happened,” announced a contributor to Climate Audit, a website devoted to criticising the science of climate change.

“RC” said nothing more — but included a web link that took anyone who clicked on it to another site, Real Climate.

There, on the morning of November 17, they found a treasure trove: a thousand or so emails sent or received by Professor Phil Jones, director of the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia in Norwich.

Jones is a key player in the science of climate change. His department’s databases on global temperature changes and its measurements have been crucial in building the case for global warming.

What those emails suggested, however, was that Jones and some colleagues may have become so convinced of their case that they crossed the line from objective research into active campaigning.

In one, Jones boasted of using statistical “tricks” to obliterate apparent declines in global temperature. In another he advocated deleting data rather than handing them to climate sceptics. And in a third he proposed organised boycotts of journals that had the temerity to publish papers that undermined the message.

It was a powerful and controversial mix — far too powerful for some. Real Climate is a website designed for scientists who share Jones’s belief in man-made climate change. Within hours the file had been stripped from the site.

Several hours later, however, it reappeared — this time on an obscure Russian server. Soon it had been copied to a host of other servers, first in Saudi Arabia and Turkey and then Europe and America.

What’s more, the anonymous poster was determined not to be stymied again. He or she posted comments on climate-sceptic blogs, detailing a dozen of the best emails and offering web links to the rest. Jones’s statistical tricks were now public property.

Steve McIntyre, a prominent climate sceptic, was amazed. “Words failed me,” he said. Another, Patrick Michaels, declared: “This is not a smoking gun; this is a mushroom cloud.”

Inevitably, the affair became nicknamed Climategate. For the scientists, campaigners and politicians trying to rouse the world to action on climate change the revelations could hardly have come at a worse time. Next month global leaders will assemble in Copenhagen to seek limits on carbon emissions. The last thing they need is renewed doubts about the validity of the science.

The scandal has also had a huge personal and professional impact on the scientists. “These have been the worst few days of my professional life,” said Jones. He had to call on the police for protection after receiving anonymous phone calls and personal threats.

Why should a few emails sent to and from a single research scientist at a middle-ranking university have so much impact? And most importantly, what does it tell us about the quality of the research underlying the science of climate change?

THE hacking scandal is not an isolated event. Instead it is the latest round of a long-running battle over climate science that goes back to 1990.

That was when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — the group of scientists that advises governments worldwide — published its first set of reports warning that the Earth faced deadly danger from climate change. A centrepiece of that report was a set of data showing how the temperature of the northern hemisphere was rising rapidly.

The problem was that the same figures showed that it had all happened before. The so-called medieval warm period of about 1,000 years ago saw Britain covered in vineyards and Viking farmers tending cows in Greenland. For any good scientist this raised a big question: was the recent warming linked to humans burning fossil fuels or was it part of a natural cycle?

The researchers set to work and in 1999 a group led by Professor Michael Mann, a climatologist at Pennsylvania State University, came up with new numbers showing that the medieval warm period was not so important after all.

Some bits of the Atlantic may have been warm for a while, but the records suggested that the Pacific had been rather chilly over the same period — so on average there was little change.

Plotted out, Mann’s data turned into the famous “hockey stick” graph. It showed northern hemisphere temperatures as staying flat for hundreds of years and then rising steeply from 1900 until now. The implication was that this rise would continue, with potentially deadly consequences for humanity.

That vision of continents being hit by droughts and floods while the Arctic melts away has turned a scientific debate into a highly emotional and political one. The language used by “warmists” and sceptics alike has become increasingly polarised.

George Monbiot, widely respected as a writer on green issues, has branded doubters “climate deniers”, a phrase uncomfortably close to holocaust denial. Sceptics, particularly in America, have suggested that scientists who believe in climate change are part of a global left-wing conspiracy to divert billions of dollars into green technology.

A more cogent criticism is that there has been a reluctance to acknowledge dissent on the question of climate science. Al Gore, the former US vice-president turned green campaigner, has described the climate debate as “settled”. Yet the science, say critics, has not been tested to the limit. This is why the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia is so significant.

Its researchers have built up records of how temperatures have changed over thousands of years. Perhaps the most important is the land and sea temperature record for the world since the mid-19th century. This is the database that shows the “unequivocal” rise of 0.8C over the last 157 years on which Mann’s hockey stick and much else in climate science depend.

Some critics believe that the unit’s findings need to be treated with more caution, because all the published data have been “corrected” — meaning they have been altered to compensate for possible anomalies in the way they were taken. Such changes are normal; what’s controversial is how they are done. This is compounded by the unwillingness of the unit to release the original raw data.

David Holland, an engineer from Northampton, is one of a number of sceptics who believe the unit has got this process wrong. When he submitted a request for the figures under freedom of information laws he was refused because it was “not in the public interest”.

Others who made similar requests were turned down because they were not academics, among them McIntyre, a Canadian who runs the Climate Audit website.

A genuine academic, Ross McKitrick, professor of economics at the University of Guelph in Canada, also tried. He said: “I was rejected for an entirely different reason. The [unit] told me they had obtained the data under confidentiality agreements and so could not supply them. This was odd because they had already supplied some of them to other academics, but only those who support the idea of climate change.”

IT was against this background that the emails were leaked last week, reinforcing suspicions that scientific objectivity has been sacrificed. There is unease even among researchers who strongly support the idea that humans are changing the climate. Roger Pielke, professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder, said: “Over the last decade there has been a very political battle between the climate sceptics and activist scientists.

“It seems to me that the scientists have lost touch with what they were up to. They saw themselves as in a battle with the sceptics rather than advancing scientific knowledge.”

Professor Mike Hulme, a fellow researcher of Jones at the University of East Anglia and author of Why We Disagree About Climate Change, said: “The attitudes revealed in the emails do not look good. The tribalism that some of the leaked emails display is something more usually associated with social organisation within primitive cultures; it is not attractive when we find it at work inside science.”

There could, however, be another reason why the unit rejected requests to see its data.

This weekend it emerged that the unit has thrown away much of the data. Tucked away on its website is this statement: “Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites … We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (ie, quality controlled and homogenised) data.”

If true, it is extraordinary. It means that the data on which a large part of the world’s understanding of climate change is based can never be revisited or checked. Pielke said: “Can this be serious? It is now impossible to create a new temperature index from scratch. [The unit] is basically saying, ‘Trust us’.”

WHERE does this leave the climate debate? While the overwhelming belief of scientists is that the world is getting warmer and that humanity is responsible, sceptical voices are increasing.

Lord Lawson, the Tory former chancellor, announced last week the creation of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a think tank, to “bring reason, integrity and balance to a debate that has become seriously unbalanced, irrationally alarmist, and all too often depressingly intolerant”.

Lawson said: “Climate change is not being properly debated because all the political parties are on the same side, and there is an intolerance towards anybody who wants to debate it. It has turned climate change from being a political issue into a secular religion.”

The public are understandably confused. A recent poll showed that 41% accept as scientific fact that global warming is taking place and is largely man-made, while 32% believe the link is unproven and 15% said the world is not warming.

This weekend many of Jones’s colleagues were standing by him. Tim Lenton, professor of earth system science at UEA, said: “We wouldn’t have anything like the understanding of climate change that we do were it not for the work of Phil Jones and his colleagues. They have spent decades putting together the historical temperature record and it is good work.”

The problem is that, after the past week, both sceptics and the public will require even more convincing of that.

STORY 2
Reposted from TBR.cc Investigate magazine’s breaking news forum:

New Zealand’s NIWA accused of CRU-style temperature faking

The New Zealand Government’s chief climate advisory unit NIWA is under fire for allegedly massaging raw climate data to show a global warming trend that wasn’t there.

The scandal breaks as fears grow worldwide that corruption of climate science is not confined to just Britain’s CRU climate research centre.

In New Zealand’s case, the figures published on NIWA’s [the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric research] website suggest a strong warming trend in New Zealand over the past century:

The caption to the photo on the NiWA site reads:

From NIWA’s web site — Figure 7: Mean annual temperature over New Zealand, from 1853 to 2008 inclusive, based on between 2 (from 1853) and 7 (from 1908) long-term station records. The blue and red bars show annual differences from the 1971 – 2000 average, the solid black line is a smoothed time series, and the dotted [straight] line is the linear trend over 1909 to 2008 (0.92°C/100 years).

But analysis of the raw climate data from the same temperature stations has just turned up a very different result:

Gone is the relentless rising temperature trend, and instead there appears to have been a much smaller growth in warming, consistent with the warming up of the planet after the end of the Little Ice Age in 1850

Read the Rest of this Story Here

Scientists Pull an About Face on Global Warming

Church of Darwin, s8int.com, Science, Unexplained Artifact | Posted by Chris Parker
Sep 22 2009


By Lorne Gunter, For The Calgary Herald, September 19, 2009

Imagine if Pope Benedict gave a speech saying the Catholic Church has had it wrong all these centuries; there is no reason priests shouldn’t marry. That might generate the odd headline, no?

Or if Don Cherry claimed suddenly to like European hockey players who wear visors and float around the ice, never bodychecking opponents.

Or Jack Layton insisted that unions are ruining the economy by distorting wages and protecting unproductive workers.

Or Stephen Harper began arguing that it makes good economic sense for Ottawa to own a car company. (Oh, wait, that one happened.) But at least, the Tories-buy-GM aberration made all the papers and newscasts.

When a leading proponent for one point of view suddenly starts batting for the other side, it’s usually newsworthy.

So why was a speech last week by Prof. Mojib Latif of Germany’s Leibniz Institute not given more prominence?

Latif is one of the leading climate modellers in the world. He is the recipient of several international climate-study prizes and a lead author for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). He has contributed significantly to the IPCC’s last two five-year reports that have stated unequivocally that man-made greenhouse emissions are causing the planet to warm dangerously.

Yet last week in Geneva, at the UN’s World Climate Conference–an annual gathering of the so-called “scientific consensus” on man-made climate change –Latif conceded the Earth has not warmed for nearly a decade and that we are likely entering “one or even two decades during which temperatures cool.”

The global warming theory has been based all along on the idea that the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans would absorb much of the greenhouse warming caused by a rise in man-made carbon dioxide, then they would let off that heat and warm the atmosphere and the land.

But as Latif pointed out, the Atlantic, and particularly the North Atlantic, has been cooling instead. And it looks set to continue a cooling phase for 10 to 20 more years.

“How much?” he wondered before the assembled delegates. “The jury is still out.”

But it is increasingly clear that global warming is on hiatus for the time being. And that is not what the UN, the alarmist scientists or environmentalists predicted. For the past dozen years, since the Kyoto accords were signed in 1997, it has been beaten into our heads with the force and repetition of the rowing drum on a slave galley that the Earth is warming and will continue to warm rapidly through this century until we reach deadly temperatures around 2100.

While they deny it now, the facts to the contrary are staring them in the face: None of the alarmist drummers ever predicted anything like a 30-year pause in their apocalyptic scenario.

Latif says he expects warming to resume in 2020 or 2030.

In the past year, two other groups of scientists–one in Germany, the second in the United States–have come to the same conclusion: Warming is on hold, likely because of a cooling of the Earth’s upper oceans, but it will resume.

But how is that knowable? How can Latif and the others state with certainty that after this long and unforeseen cooling, dangerous man-made heating will resume? They failed to observe the current cooling for years after it had begun, how then can their predictions for the resumption of dangerous warming be trusted?

My point is they cannot. It’s true the supercomputer models Latif and other modellers rely on for their dire predictions are becoming more accurate. But getting the future correct is far trickier. Chances are some unforeseen future changes will throw the current predictions out of whack long before the forecast resumption of warming.

Lorne Gunter is a columnist with the Edmonton Journal and National Post.

See Also: All The Really Smart People Believe in Man-Made Global Warming

Inca Empire Flourished in the Andes Due to a 400 Year Period of Global Warming?

Church of Darwin, Science, Sophistication of Ancestors, Unexplained Artifact | Posted by Chris Parker
Jul 02 2009

Opportunity knocks, again, in the Andes
by
Nicholas Asheshov
Living in Peru

Photo: The Moray Amphitheater Complex in the Andes Could Seat 260,000; but that’s a Whole Other Story

The last time global warming came to the Andes it produced the Inca Empire. A team of English and U.S. scientists has analyzed pollen, seeds and isotopes in core samples taken from the deep mud of a small lake not far from Machu Picchu and their report says that “the success of the Inca was underpinned by a period of warming that lasted more than four centuries.”

The four centuries coincided directly with the rise of this startling, hyper-productive culture that at its zenith was bigger than the Ming Dynasty China and the Ottoman Empire, the two most powerful contemporaries of the Inca.

“This period of increased temperatures,” the scientists say, “allowed the Inca and their predecessors to expand, from AD 1150 onwards, their agricultural zones by moving up the mountains to build a massive system of terraces fed frequently by glacial water, as well as planting trees to reduce erosion and increase soil fertility.

“They re-created the landscape and produced the huge surpluses of maize, potatoes, quinua and other crops that freed a rapidly growing population to build roads, scores of palaces like Machu Picchu and in particular the development of a large standing army.”

No World Bank, no NGOs.

The new study is called “Putting the Rise of the Inca within a Climatic and Land Management Context” and was prepared by Alex Chepstow-Lusty, an English paleo-biologist working for the French Institute of Andean Studies, in Lima. Alex led a team that includes Brian Bauer, of the University of Illinois, one of today’s top Inca-ologists. The study is being published in Climate of the Past, an online academic journal.

Alex spends a lot of time in Cuzco and he told me the other day that the report “raises the question of whether today’s global warming may be another opportunity for the Andes.”

The core samples from the sediment of the little lake, Marcacocha, in the Patakancha valley above Ollantaytambo, show that there was a major cold drought in the southern Andes beginning in 880 AD lasting for a devastating century-plus through into 1000AD. This cold snap finished off both the Wari and the Tiahuanaco cultures which had between them dominated the southern Andes for more than a millenium.

Click Here to Read the Remainder of the Article Originally Published June 25, Caretas, Country Notes

E-mails indicate EPA Suppressed Report Skeptical of Global Warming

Church of Darwin, Fin De Siecle, Science, Uncategorized | Posted by Chris Parker
Jun 30 2009


Photo: is global warming illusory; like this parka?

by Declan McCullagh
CNET NEWS

The Environmental Protection Agency may have suppressed an internal report that was skeptical of claims about global warming, including whether carbon dioxide must be strictly regulated by the federal government, according to a series of newly disclosed e-mail messages.

Less than two weeks before the agency formally submitted its pro-regulation recommendation to the White House, an EPA center director quashed a 98-page report that warned against making hasty “decisions based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data.”

The EPA official, Al McGartland, said in an e-mail message (PDF) to a staff researcher on March 17: “The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward…and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision.”

The e-mail correspondence raises questions about political interference in what was supposed to be an independent review process inside a federal agency–and echoes criticisms of the EPA under the Bush administration, which was accused of suppressing a pro-climate change document.

Alan Carlin, the primary author of the 98-page EPA report, said in a telephone interview on Friday that his boss, McGartland, was being pressured himself. “It was his view that he either lost his job or he got me working on something else,” Carlin said. “That was obviously coming from higher levels.”

E-mail messages released this week show that Carlin was ordered not to “have any direct communication” with anyone outside his small group at EPA on the topic of climate change, and was informed that his report would not be shared with the agency group working on the topic.

“I was told for probably the first time in I don’t know how many years exactly what I was to work on,” said Carlin, a 38-year veteran of the EPA. “And it was not to work on climate change.” One e-mail orders him to update a grants database instead.

For its part, the EPA sent an e-mailed statement saying: “Claims that this individual’s opinions were not considered or studied are entirely false. This Administration and this EPA Administrator are fully committed to openness, transparency, and science-based decision making. These principles were reflected throughout the development of the proposed endangerment finding, a process in which a broad array of voices were heard and an inter-agency review was conducted.” (The endangerment finding is the EPA’s decision that carbon dioxide endangers the public health and welfare.)

Carlin has an undergraduate degree in physics from CalTech and a PhD in economics from MIT. His Web site lists papers about the environment and public policy dating back to 1964, spanning topics from pollution control to environmentally-responsible energy pricing.

After reviewing the scientific literature that the EPA is relying on, Carlin said, he concluded that it was at least three years out of date and did not reflect the latest research. “My personal view is that there is not currently any reason to regulate (carbon dioxide),” he said. “There may be in the future. But global temperatures are roughly where they were in the mid-20th century. They’re not going up, and if anything they’re going down.”

Carlin’s report listed a number of recent developments he said the EPA did not consider, including that global temperatures have declined for 11 years; that new research predicts Atlantic hurricanes will be unaffected; that there’s “little evidence” that Greenland is shedding ice at expected levels; and that solar radiation has the largest single effect on the earth’s temperature.

If there is a need for the government to lower planetary temperatures, Carlin believes, other mechanisms would be cheaper and more effective than regulation of carbon dioxide. One paper he wrote says managing sea level rise or reducing solar radiation reaching the earth would be more cost-effective alternatives.

The EPA’s possible suppression of Carlin’s report, which lists the EPA’s John Davidson as a co-author, could endanger any carbon dioxide regulations if they are eventually challenged in court.

“The big question is: there is this general rule that when an agency puts something out for public evidence and comment, it’s supposed to have the evidence supporting it and the evidence the other way,” said Sam Kazman, general counsel of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a nonpartisan think tank in Washington, D.C., that has been skeptical of new laws or regulations relating to global warming.

Kazman’s group obtained the documents–both CEI and Carlin say he was not the source–and released the e-mails on Tuesday and the report on Friday. As a result of the disclosure, CEI has asked the EPA to reopen the comment period on the greenhouse gas regulatory proceeding, which ended on Tuesday.

The EPA also said in its statement: “The individual in question is not a scientist and was not part of the working group dealing with this issue. Nevertheless, the document he submitted was reviewed by his peers and agency scientists, and information from that report was submitted by his manager to those responsible for developing the proposed endangerment finding. In fact, some ideas from that document are included and addressed in the endangerment finding.”

That appears to conflict with an e-mail from McGartland in March, who said to Carlin: “I decided not to forward your comments… I can see only one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office.”

He also wrote to Carlin: “Please do not have any direct communication with anyone outside of (our group) on endangerment. There should be no meetings, e-mails, written statements, phone calls, etc.”

One reason why the process might have been highly charged politically is the unusual speed of the regulatory process. Lisa Jackson, the new EPA administrator, had said that she wanted her agency to reach a decision about regulating carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act by April 2–the second anniversary of a related U.S. Supreme Court decision.

“All this goes back to a decision at a higher level that this was very urgent to get out, if possible, yesterday,” Carlin said. “In the case of an ordinary regulation, these things normally take a year or two. In this case, it was a few weeks to get it out for public comment.” (Carlin said that he and other EPA staff members who were asked to respond to a draft only had four and a half days to do so.)

In the last few days, Republicans have begun to raise questions about the report and e-mail messages, but it was insufficient to derail the so-called cap and trade bill from being approved by the U.S. House of Representatives.

Rep. Joe Barton, the senior Republican on the Energy and Commerce committee, invoked Carlin’s report in a floor speech during the debate on Friday.

“The science is not there to back it up,” Barton said. “An EPA report that has been suppressed…raises grave doubts about the endangerment finding. If you don’t have an endangerment finding, you don’t need this bill. We don’t need this bill. And for some reason, the EPA saw fit not to include that in its decision.”

“I’m sure it was very inconvenient for the EPA to consider a study that contradicted the findings it wanted to reach,” Rep. James Sensenbrenner, the senior Republican on the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, said in a statement.

“But the EPA is supposed to reach its findings based on evidence, not on political goals. The repression of this important study casts doubts on the EPA’s finding, and frankly, on other analysis the EPA has conducted on climate issues.”

The revelations could prove embarrassing to Jackson, the EPA administrator, who said in January: “I will ensure the EPA’s efforts to address the environmental crises of today are rooted in three fundamental values: science-based policies and programs, adherence to the rule of law, and overwhelming transparency.”

Similarly, President Barack Obama claimed that “the days of science taking a back seat to ideology are over… To undermine scientific integrity is to undermine our democracy. It is contrary to our way of life.”

“All this talk from the president and (EPA administrator) Lisa Jackson about integrity, transparency, and increased EPA protection for whistleblowers–you’ve got a bouquet of ironies here,” said Kazman, the CEI attorney.

All the Really Smart People Believe in Man-Made Global Warming

Amusing?, Church of Darwin, s8int.com, Science, Uncategorized | Posted by Chris Parker
Mar 19 2009


Painting: The Great Day of His Wrath, by John Martin

All the really smart people believe in man-made global warming.

Smart people believe in evolution too. Some of them also believe in God but certainly not one of them believes that men and dinosaurs lived together. Remember the laughs the smart people in politics and the media got out of Alaska governor Sarah Palin’s comments that she believed that man and dinosaurs had interacted? Maybe she could see dinosaurs from her back porch?

When I say smart, I mean smart in a worldly way. I mean smartness, not wisdom. There is a funny thing about smart people, though; its often pointed out that smart people are easier to fool than non-smart people. This can be put down to the fact that they believe that they are too smart to fool. They believe too much in their own capabilities.

Clever or smart people I’m told, are easier to con—they trust their own judgment too much-while the not-so-smart don’t trust their own judgment. Sometimes, it is said that they don’t even understand the “great” opportunity that is being presented to them so that they can be swindled.

Some “hypnotizers” claim that it is easier to hypnotize the smart because smart people have more preconceptions about the way the world works and thus, it is sometimes easier to prey on those misconceptions.

What does it feel like to be smart like that? Obviously, I wouldn’t know but as the old line goes;
*hey, the smartest man in the world just jumped out of the plane with my backback!

Certainly, the Bible makes the case for Godly wisdom over worldly knowledge;

1 Cor 3
Do not deceive yourselves. If any one of you thinks he is wise by the standards of this age, he should become a “fool” so that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight. As it is written: “He catches the wise in their craftiness”; and again, “The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile.”

Smart people smart a little bit whenever they see a poll showing that a majority of American’s believe in God and disbelieve evolution. For instance a recent poll in Britain found widespread belief in creationism. The majority believed that an intelligence was involved in creation even though only 33% or so believe that the world was created less than 10,000 years ago. Polling of Americans has been even stronger in favor of creationism and God with a majority (79% in Nationwide poll in 2000) favoring that creation be taught along with evolution. Smart people must smart over the fact that approximately the same percentage of scientists believe in God as does the general population.

The British survey caused famous Atheist and smart person Richard Dawkins to say that Britons were “pig ignorant” about science. Then he went out on his stoop and yelled at passing teenagers to “get off his lawn”!

Smart people believe in consensus. There is a scientific consensus on evolution, on global warming, on the creation of the universe etc. But as the late Michael Crichton said;

“I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

“Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world.

In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”

Why don’t many Christians go along with the consensus on man made global warming? It’s not because Christians are opposed to lowering harmful emissions like carbon dioxide and other air pollutants, it is because Christians know how the world will end—and it will not be because of global warming; though warming of the globe will be involved;

2 Peter 3 10

But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare. Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming.

That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat. “

Predictions of Catastrophic Global Temperature Change in the 1960’s and 1970’s

Really smart people tell us that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. Yet these same people are predicting the end of all things based on the supposed global temperature increase of at most, several decades. If the earth is really 4.5 billion years old, then the period in question is less than .000111% of its life and akin to you or I going into full panic mode because our forehead felt a little warm a second ago.

In the 1960’s and 1970’s, all the way through 1977, scientists and other smart people were very concerned about global temperature change then as well—only at that time the consensus was that we were heading towards an inevitable ice age; leading to gross planetary disruptions; global famines, war over scarce resources and population dislocations.

It seems to me that a brief survey of news articles during that period; showing what the consensus and the smart people had to say then would put the words of the current scientific consensus in some perspective. It may be that some scientist’s career spanned the period beginning in the 1960’s until today and that he/she was able to sound dire warnings for both global cooling and global warming—always safe within the consensus!

Weather Bureau Studies Grinnell Glacier
Montana Standard-Post 9/4/1966

The article stated that global warming had been a concern earlier in the century but that the planet had undergone ”global cooling” which had reduced temperatures 1degree in the past 20 years.

Pollution Ice Age? Star-News 1/26/1970

A new Ice Age may be breathing down our necks. This warning doesn’t come from hippie haired zealots with sandwich boards proclaiming, “The End is Near.” As most of the nation shivers through one of the severest winters on record (a situation which has not reached this area as yet), scientists are seriously speculating about the long-term effects of a global cooling ‘trend.

Some see links between it and air pollution. There is considerable debate about the meaning of data on hand. Scientists do agree, however, that in the last 30 years or so, the average temperature of the. world as a whole has dropped by one-third ‘ to one-half degree Centigrade. Such a decrease doesn’t look like much until it is ‘noted that the last Ice Age, about 10,000 years ago, resulted from a temperature drop of only 4 or 5 degrees.

Gordon J. F. MacDonald, vice-chancellor for research at UC Santa Barbara, puts it this way: “The answer is by no means clear, but there is increasing evidence that urban and industrial pollution, perhaps aided by agricultural pollution, is in large part responsible for decreasing the surface temperature at a rate compared with the effect of carbon dioxide in increasing temperature.

It’s Getting Colder
The Daily Courier, 1/13/1971
Scientists Say Warmer Ocean May Be Villain in Record Chill

The most frequently heard explanation these days is that air pollution is blotting out part of the sunlight. It also has been suggested that i n c r e a s e d volcanic dust may be doing the same thing. A third idea is that we may be experiencing a cyclical variation in the sun’s energy output. That is, the solar rays simply aren’t as hot right now as they are sometimes.

……. The theory of the apparent link between global wind flow and the emerging cooling trend casts considerable doubt on the arguments that air pollution and volcanic activity have much if anything to do with the nation’s icebox weather conditions, …..

The Earth Is Cooling, Return of Ice Age Is Feared
Iowa City Press-Citizen 4/14/1973

Snow cover remaining on Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic after the summer melt-off of 1979 is in sharp contrast to the same area, relatively snow-free, seen in an aerial photo taken a decade earlier. Reflection of sunlight off such year-round snow cover is considered a possible contribution to further global cooling.

Solid information is scarce. But whatever its cause, many of the scientists who concern themselves with studying the earth’s climate balance and the glaciers that once covered much of the Northern Hemisphere are no longer asking whether another great glaciation is on the way; they are asking rather: When? And why?

…..The threat, according to scientists from a score of institutions who gathered at Brown University in Providence, R.I., recently to share information on “The End of the Present Interglacial,” is not that miles thick ice sheets are about to come sweeping down out of the north, returning us instantaneously to an ice-age climate. It is rather that there are already signs the earth is cooling in a cycle similar to those that heralded earlier great glaciations.

…..Fairbridge declares “Global climatic change constitutes a first, order environmental hazard,” the scientists who gathered at Providence declared at the end of their deliberations.

….”Is man,” Kukla, Matthews and Mitchell ask, “prepared to face the natural changes of climate
likely to follow in the centuries ahead?”

They fear that the answer is; no; not yet.

Winnipeg Free Press
6/22/1974

Climate specialists said a global cooling trend has lowered the earth’s temperature 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit since 1945 and may spread drought conditions though the semi-arid regions of Asia and South America.

The warning flags of inevitable crisis are up, Dr .Patrick McTaggart-Cowan of the Science Council of Canada, a former meteorologist, said of worldwide agricultural prospects In a recent McGill University convocation address.

First Half of Century Unusually Mild
Global Climate Begins to Return to Harsher State
Edwardsville Intelligencer, The 8/1/74

For the long run, there is mounting evidence of a Worldwide cooling trend. The average
temperature of the world as a whole has dropped by one-third to one-half degree Centigrade in the last 30 years. “The decline of prevailing temperatures since about 1945 appears to be the longest continued downward trend since, said a spokesman for the view that manmade atmospheric pollution has changed the global climate.

Fossil-fuel burning, mechanized agricultural opertions, accidental forest fires, and the
primitive slash-and-burn land clearing method still widely practiced in the tropics have
increased the amount of dust in the atmosphere, Bryson says, causing more sunlight to be reflected into space and lowering earth’s temperature.

Post-Standard, The 8/3/74

“It is something that, if it continues, will affect the whole human occupation of the earth — like many millions of people starving. The effects are already showing up in rather drastic ways.”

Viewed from the perspective of thousands of years, the first half of this century was an extraordinary, having a brief interlude of exceptionally warm and benign weather. The warming trend peaked in about 1945, and temperatures have been dropping since.

The total drop has been about 2,7 degrees Farenheit — hardly enough to conjure images of the glaciers that crept over North America 10,000 years ago.

News Journal 12/19/1974

Climatologists claim that earth had been in a cooling period from the 15th century until 1890—then a warming trend from 1890 until 1945 from which temps have declined 2.7 degrees farenheit. Global cooling could have tragic effects on the world’s food supply

Cedar Rapids Gazette
Bad Weather Cited
Food Crisis Factor 2/9/1975

BAJA CALIFORNIA, Mexico — An Iowa State university agriculturist reported here recently that “unfavorable weather has been the major factor in causing the present world food crisis.” Louis M. Thompson, associate dean of agriculture at the university, discussed weather variables and resulting effects on world agriculture at a workshop studying world food supply problems.

Thompson is one of 12 scientists participating in the three-day program which Is sponsored by the Wright-Ingraham Institute of Colorado Springs, Colo., a non-profit organization to promote opportunities for serving human andnatural resources.

In an analysis of global weather patterns, Thompson said cooling and warming trends are unpredictable and “the only feature which allows prediction with confidence is that of change.” He reminded his fellow scientists, “We must accept the fact that a cooling trend could continue to the end of this century (with) Important effects on agriculture.”

The Lincoln Star,
Wednesday, July 02, 1975 Lincoln, Nebraska
Global famine and a mass freezing to death unless humans develop ways to survive

It’s almost impossible to describe any scientific debate as raging but the controversy over when the world will enter another and terrible ice age has become the rage in recent months because of recent findings. Oddly a vast chill has been the normal condition of earth during the last two million years. During that time the world has been cold more than it has been warm.

The Anderson Herald,
Thursday, June 17, 1976 Anderson, Indiana
A Global cooling trend that began in the 1940s.

Advocates of this theory predict that the worldwide temperature drop could usher in a Ice Age similar to one that lasted from 1600 to 1850. A CIA report supporting the thesis was released last month. It warned that world food supplies could be threatened if the cooling trend continued. The stability of most nations is based upon a dependable source of food but this stability will not be possible under the new climate the report said.

Des Moines Register, The
1/17/1977
Problems of Cold Climate

….would be populations of animals, wild and domestic, since competition for productive land surface would be quickly felt by man. “The raising of food animals would be too inefficient in an era of land
scarcity and man would have to exist on a vegetation and or synthetic diet. The management of four or more billion people on the productivity which would become available below ‘the Fortieth Parallel would require the highest forms of technology.

“Without disciplined worldwide planning, it is estimated that half the world’s population could die through war, fighting on a smaller scale, or cold.”

Scientists Ask Why World Climate Is Changing; Major Cooling May Be Ahead; Scientists Ponder Why World’s Climate Is Changing; a Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable
By WALTER SULLIVAN
The New York Times
May 21, 1975, Wednesday

The world’s climate is changing. Of that scientists are firmly convinced. But in what direction and why are subjects of deepening debate.

There are specialists who say that a new ice age is on the way the inevitable consequence of a natural cyclic process, or as a result of man-made pollution of the atmosphere.

And there are those who say that such pollution may actually head off an ice age.

Sooner or later a major cooling of the climate is widely considered inevitable. Hints that it may already have begun are evident.

Send comments to s8intcom@comcast.net


*A doctor, a physicist, a Boy Scout, and a minister were out for a Sunday afternoon flight on a small private plane. Suddenly, the plane developed engine trouble. The pilot did his best, but the plane started to go down. The pilot grabbed a parachute, told the passengers that they’d better jump, and jumped himself.

But there were only three parachutes left. The doctor grabbed one and said “I’m a doctor! I save lives, so I have to live,” and jumped out. The physicist said, “I’m the smartest person in the world, I deserve to live!” He grabbed a parachute and jumped, too.

The minister looked at the Boy Scout and said, “Son, I’ve lived a long and full life. You’re young and have your whole life ahead of you. Take the last parachute and live in peace.” The Boy Scout handed the parachute back to the minister and said “Take it. ‘The smartest person in the world’ just jumped out of the plane with my back pack.”