Catholicism and Climate Change

[Ender]

PS Dr Millers job is to sell science funding to America. I wonder what would happen to funding policy if he found Americans well versed in science? Could this bias his model?

Speaking of bias, there is a very interesting article in this month’s Atlantic magazine and although it is specifically about medical science there is every reason to believe that the author’s conclusions would be applicable to other branches of science as well (can you spell AGW?).

In the paper, Ioannidis laid out a detailed mathematical proof that, assuming modest levels of researcher bias, typically imperfect research techniques, and the well-known tendency to focus on exciting rather than highly plausible theories, researchers will come up with wrong findings most of the time. Simply put, if you’re attracted to ideas that have a good chance of being wrong, and if you’re motivated to prove them right, and if you have a little wiggle room in how you assemble the evidence, you’ll probably succeed in proving wrong theories right.

theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/8269

This article is of course proof of nothing at all regarding AGW but it is highly suggestive that the same forces that influence bad science in medical research are probably just as likely to lead to the same bad results in other fields, and let’s face it, there is a lot of motivation to prove that the theory of AGW is right.

Ender

 

[JasonSB]

If I think animals are a different species of life than humans - how do I answer?

Of course all life forms on earth that are not human are different species to humans. A good first-pass definition of “species” is “a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and capable of producing fertile offspring”. Thus all humans belong to the same species, but humans are a different species to daffodils, and although horses and donkeys can interbreed, their offspring are infertile, so horses and donkeys are different species, too.

The key significance of this is that it is much harder for mutations to pass between different species than it is between members of the same species, so they will tend to diverge. So, for example, if horses develop a beneficial mutation, this mutation can potentially spread throughout the entire horse population over a period of time but it cannot spread into the donkey population through reproduction. (There is still the remote possibility of it being transferred by other means, e.g. viruses, but it’s exceedingly rare and even rarer to be at least as beneficial.)

This is only a first-pass definition, though, because not all species reproduce sexually. Differentiating bacteria into species, for example, is done by assessing similarity.

It’s also impossible for us to know whether homo erectus could successfully interbreed with a modern human because there aren’t any left, so we’re forced to use the technique used for bacteria. It’s not perfect – you couldn’t know for sure whether horses and donkeys are the same species just from their skeletons, for example – but the further back we go the less likely it becomes that the ancestors and the descendents could interbreed.

The only way you can accept Evolution but reject the question as it is worded is to argue that modern humans would be able to successfully reproduce with every ancestor all the way back to the beginning, which would be a bizarre claim to make. Therefore the question is a perfectly valid and simple way to ask if people accept Evolution because it encompasses one of its fundamental results.

If I think humans share 98.4% DNA structure to other species chimpanzees ] but it’s the 1.6% that differentiates us from animals - how do I answer?

I have no idea why you would think that affects the answer. Chimpanzees aren’t our ancestors – they are just as far removed from our last common ancestor as we are, as are bananas, virii, mice, dogs, starfish, and trees from our last common ancestor with each of them.

Science also says we share DNA with mice - dogs - starfish - trees.

And Evolution very nicely explains why.

The question doesn’t even distinguish between animal species.

I have no idea why you think it should.

The problem is one of reductionism in this question**, the idea that beings can be reduced to merely their parts.

What reductionism? It’s a very simple question.

Common sense perception tells us that, viruses - mice - apes- bananas - trees and people are clearly different things, however much they may share genes,

Of course they are. That’s why they are classified into different domains, kingdoms, etc. I have no idea why you think this is relevant to the question.

It is a recognition of the fact that form of a thing - matters… just as much as does matter of that form, - that makes it up.

Of course form (morphology) is important. Before DNA was discovered that was the only way to classify organisms, and it was remarkably accurate. (There are few examples where DNA cladistics showed the earlier classifications based on morphology were wrong; in fact, the remarkable agreement between conclusions based on morphology and conclusions based on DNA are two of the “independent studies” that Pope John Paul II was talking about when he said: “The convergence in the results of these independent studies – which was neither planned nor sought – constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.”)

Very much the same thing occurred with AGW – paleoclimate reconstructions of CO2, temperature, and ocean acidification, observations of changes in outgoing and downward IR as CO2 concentrations change, observations of plant and animal species behaviour, etc., etc., etc.

The question and resulting answer would depend on attitude or opinion of / to the definitions of the words ** “animal”** and “developed”.

It would also depend on the attitude or opinion of/to the definitions of the words “as”, “of”, etc., but I don’t see why that’s relevant. Using perfectly standard and widely agreed dictionary definitions of each of the words the question is completely unremarkable.

Does my answer reflect what I truly know or think about evolution?

It seems so.

Since I believe, I’m evolving as I type this.

Not in the usual sense. The difference between you and your offspring, or your parents and you, is potentially Evolution in action. Changes in you, personally, that are not passed on to your offspring, are not Evolution.

Since I believe, a blackbird is not a finch nor is it a stork, but each evolves.

Non-sequiter. Nobody disputes that a blackbird is not a finch. The question of whether the species are evolving and have evolved is independent of that. Do you accept that a blackbird and a finch and a stork all have ancestors in common? That all birds and you have ancestors in common? That you and a banana have ancestors in common?

I would not be anti-science nor would I be an anti-evolutionist.

It would be wrong assessment of my answer.

Have you actually given an answer? I didn’t notice one. All I see are a lot of confused and irrelevant statements.

 

[JasonSB]

Your claim that people who don’t believe in evolution are somehow related to anti-science needs referential evidence.

Do you dispute my claim that the American public has a very low acceptance rate for Evolution by international standards?

Do you dispute my claim that American Evangelical Christians, in particular, have “problems” with the theory, while Catholics have no reason to because of what the Church has said on the issue?

Do you dispute the idea that if people can reject a theory that 99.9% of biologists accept purely because it contradicts their religious views, they are going to be predisposed to reject any theory that contradicts their personal beliefs?

One could very well not believe in evolution as it’s presented and be all for science, indeed even be a scientist.

What do you mean “as it’s presented”? Since I have no idea how it’s been presented to you, perhaps you could simply and clearly state which aspects of Evolution you disagree with?

You have a misguided idea that to embrace science means to accept all unproven hypothesis created by science, IMHO. Not so!

My hypothesis is that those who reject a theory outright purely because it contradicts their beliefs are likely to do so in more than one instance. As soon as you believe that scientists are part of a global conspiracy to trick people into thinking something that’s not true, anything you don’t like the sound of is fair game and becomes an “unproven hypothesis”.

Just out of curiosity: What, to you, is not an “unproven hypothesis”?

 

[JasonSB]

It may not be true of all their predictions but it is surely true of that one in particular.

Saying it again and again doesn’t make it so. If we can’t tell if there’s a hot zone or not, how can we claim it’s missing?

AGW also predicts less heat escaping overall, which, based on the ERBE measurements, is directly contradicted by the data.

Which ERBE measurements? Are you talking about the Edition2 data that was discovered to contain a spurious warming trend back in 2003 because orbital decay wasn’t being taken into account that Linzen, for some reason, was still using six years later?

1. *]During an instrument performance study, Lee et al. (2003) discovered that the ERBE nonscanner inversion algorithm did not correctly account for the decay in the ERBS altitude over its mission lifetime; this can have a small but significant effect on the reported decadal changes of nonscanner TOA fluxes. The ERBE nonscanner inversion algorithm is used to convert nonscanner measurements at satellite altitude (approximately 611 km at the start of the mission) to TOA measurements at a reference altitude of 30 km. While these altitude changes over the 15-year period are small (on the order of 25 km) and do not affect the overall quality of the large regional fluxes, they do, however, have significant effect on the smaller changes associated with the observed large scale decadal changes in Earth radiation budget (Wong et al., 2005).
   
   *]This satellite altitude related problem is unique to the ERBS nonscanner instrument and does not affect the quality of the ERBS scanner data product. The nonscanner is a hemispheric instrument which views the entire Earth disk along with the small portion of the deep space surrounding the Earth itself. As the satellite altitude dropped over its mission, the small portion of the deep space partially viewed by the nonscanner began to be filled in by the Earth view itself, resulting in more energy being recorded by the nonscanner instrument. Since the original and the Edition2 release data did not account for these subtle altitude changes, there is a small effect of artificially increasing the reported longwave, shortwave, and net fluxes over the mission lifetime. Specifically, the overall effect of this altitude change is a small increase (~0.6%) in both longwave and shortwave radiation over the 15-year period.
   
   eosweb.larc.nasa.gov/PRODOCS/erbe/quality_summaries/s10n_wfov/erbe_s10n_wfov_nf_sf_erbs_edition3.html
   
   Fixing this changes this:
   
   
   
   Into this:
   
   
   
   Or perhaps it’s the problem caused by the SW sensor degradation due to UV exposure over time, which affects the LW readings because the LW readings are computed by subtracting the SW readings from the total radiation? earth-www.larc.nasa.gov/erbeweb/Edition3_Rev1/
   
   Feel free to be specific.
   
   BTW, you do realise that, like the satellite temperature reconstructions, this isn’t really “data”, don’t you? It’s the output of complex modelling processes. For someone who gets upset when UHI is corrected for using nearby rural thermometers and basic techniques that anybody could understand, you seem surprisingly at ease with the complex and opaque “corrections” that are applied to all these satellite products. Corrections that, for example, change “the world is cooling” (UAH a decade ago) to “the world is warming exactly as quickly as GISS claims” (UAH now, using exactly the same raw data).
   

   Your statement is true but misleading. The page from AR4 shows contributions from five sources: solar, volcanic, greenhouse, ozone, and aerosols so while your comment is true of solar it is not true of ozone which has a signature similar to that of greenhouse warming. Observations do not confirm that the contribution is from greenhouse warming rather than from (e.g.) ozone.

   You might have a point if (a) we had no idea how ozone levels had changed and (b) we had no idea how CO2 levels had changed and (c) we had no idea what the IR properties of both gasses were.
   

   AGW predicts more than simply stratospheric cooling and tropospheric warming.

   Exactly my point. And the only prediction it has made that hasn’t been confirmed is the one that measurement technology is currently unable to confirm, and even if a hot zone is confirmed, you could make exactly the same complaint about the hot zone (because it’s also a characteristic of solar forcing) as you make above about ozone with regard to stratospheric cooling!
   
   So why are you so concerned about the hot zone? Because it’s the only thing that hasn’t been confirmed yet.
   
   Each individual prediction may be the same as other possible explanations in isolation, but the only one that explains all of them is AGW, and science tends to favour a consistent theory that explains all observations over a hodge-podge of mutually inconsistent theories that explain individual observations in isolation but contradict other observations. Crazy but true.

 

[Ender]

Saying it again and again doesn’t make it so. If we can’t tell if there’s a hot zone or not, how can we claim it’s missing?

You included a very careful explanation of your position but it’s based on a not-so-careful reading of mine. I was poking fun at AGW by pointing out that their position on the hot zone was “Just because we can’t find it doesn’t mean its missing.”

BTW, you do realise that, like the satellite temperature reconstructions, this isn’t really “data”, don’t you? It’s the output of complex modelling processes.

Yes

For someone who gets upset when UHI is corrected for using nearby rural thermometers and basic techniques that anybody could understand, you seem surprisingly at ease with the complex and opaque “corrections” that are applied to all these satellite products.

You are very confident of your position and should be able to defend it without misstating mine. If you think the satellite corrections are too complicated to trust then say so and we can drop the subject - or is it only at the hot spot altitude that they are insufficiently sensitive or inadequately modeled?

Ender

 

[kimmielittle]

All I see are a lot of confused

Of course you would find confusion in my critique of the question you presented, “Human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals.”, as being evidence that it reflects on the American view of evolution. The confusion however, is in your own subjectivity.

FIRST a warning note: The theory of evolution is banned from CAF - This is why I presented no views, other than directed toward the question asked and conclusions made.

It my post ] pointed to the flaws within the question, the bias that can easily be seen in endorsing the poll as any evidence of opinion. This of course, would only be seen with a critical eye and objectivity.

Since you attempted to use this question as written “presented” above, by you ] AND the resulting poll and summery, as evidential evidence for your claim, it goes to your credibility as an “objective scientist” and your skill in critical thinking.

Instead of addressing my findings in the flaws of the question asked or the flaws that could be in assigning this poll as evidential evidence - you attempt to sidestep once again ].

I have presented facts directed at the flaws in both the question and results as well as using the results as evidence to support your claims.

The confusion ONLY arises when you, a “scientist” tries to misdirect, IMO.

Fact: The question is flawed as per my post ].
Fact:The author does have a bias toward more American funding of science.
Fact:The summary can be just as flawed.
Fact: Because of these easily seen flaws by anyone with a critic eye / mind, I can expect that any reasoning, objective scientist, dismiss it as evidential evidence.

 

[kimmielittle]

Just out of curiosity: What, to you, is not an “unproven hypothesis”?

Ahhhhhh… Just what do you think in science - is settled?

It surely isn’t AGW, for one.

I thought you were a scientist?

Maybe, you don’t understand the science of science is never settled, it evolves, until the next unproven hypothesis upsets “known understanding”.

I’ve tried to help you before with the differences between hypothesis and theory. An hypothesis can not pass falsifiability. A theory can - BUT it still isn’t settled.

 

[kimmielittle]

Speaking of bias, there is a very interesting article in this month’s Atlantic magazine and although it is specifically about medical science there is every reason to believe that the author’s conclusions would be applicable to other branches of science as well (can you spell AGW?).

In the paper, Ioannidis laid out a detailed mathematical proof that, assuming modest levels of researcher bias, typically imperfect research techniques, and the well-known tendency to focus on exciting rather than highly plausible theories, researchers will come up with wrong findings most of the time. Simply put, if you’re attracted to ideas that have a good chance of being wrong, and if you’re motivated to prove them right, and if you have a little wiggle room in how you assemble the evidence, you’ll probably succeed in proving wrong theories right.

theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/8269

This article is of course proof of nothing at all regarding AGW but it is highly suggestive that the same forces that influence bad science in medical research are probably just as likely to lead to the same bad results in other fields, and let’s face it, there is a lot of motivation to prove that the theory of AGW is right.

Ender

I believe, this study goes directly to ALL of politicized science.
To many, the actions of those involved in AGW add credence to this studies claims.

Thank you for the link

 

[kimmielittle]

Another Authoritarian Science.

In the case of water fluoridation, the chemicals used to fluoridate the water that more than 180 million people drink each day are not pharmaceutical grade, but rather hazardous waste products of the phosphate fertilizer industry; it is illegal to dump these into rivers and lakes or release the parent gases into the atmosphere.

In addition, water fluoridation is a prime example of one of the worst medical practices possible—forced medication with no control over the dose or who gets it. Perhaps most shocking of all, it is not subject to any federal regulation.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC 1999, 2001) has now acknowledged the findings of many leading dental researchers, that the mechanism of fluoride’s benefits are mainly TOPICAL not SYSTEMIC. Thus, you don’t have to swallow fluoride to protect teeth. As the benefits of fluoride (if any exist) are topical, and the risks are systemic, it makes more sense, for those who want to take the risks, to deliver the fluoride directly to the tooth in the form of toothpaste. Since swallowing fluoride is unnecessary, there is no reason to force people (against their will) to drink fluoride in their water supply. This position was recently shared by Dr. Douglas Carnall, the associate editor of the British Medical Journal. His editorial appears in Appendix 3.

fluoridealert.org/50-reasons.htm

How many decades have we been told we absolutely needed to drink fluoridated water by authoritarian science?

 

[JasonSB]

You included a very careful explanation of your position but it’s based on a not-so-careful reading of mine. I was poking fun at AGW by pointing out that their position on the hot zone was “Just because we can’t find it doesn’t mean its missing.”

Sorry, it wasn’t obvious to me that you had moved on to simply poking fun. I assumed you were still trying to support your original statement, i.e. “This point has always seemed rather devastating to me. The IPCC has a chart (AR 4, Appendix C) showing a very specific heat signature that greenhouse warming would cause - there would be a hot spot in the atmosphere roughly over the tropics about 8-14km above the surface. Actual data measurements, however, have found no such heat signature.” How can the point be “devastating” if everyone agrees that we are currently unable to detect the heat signature whether it is there or not?

I also think it’s worth noting that over shorter time frames, where there is less disagreement about how to compensate for long-term drift in sensor readings, the hotspot certainly has been detected. The problem is that on the decadal time scale, the “corrections” for sensor drift are larger than the magnitude of the anomaly itself and different people making different decisions on how to formulate those corrections arrive at different conclusions.

You are very confident of your position and should be able to defend it without misstating mine.

You said that “Just because we can’t find the conditions we predicted doesn’t mean our prediction was wrong.” summarised the AGW position. I pointed out that it was a gross misrepresentation because (a) the prediction has been confirmed numerous times in many different ways (i.e. it’s not the lack of contradictory evidence that is the basis for confidence in the theory) and (b) nobody is surprised that this particular piece of evidence has not been found (i.e. the lack of evidence in this case is not evidence of its absense).

Now, if I misunderstood your intention and failed to realise that you no longer see this as a “rather devastating” point, then I apologise. It was not intentional.

If you think the satellite corrections are too complicated to trust then say so and we can drop the subject - or is it only at the hot spot altitude that they are insufficiently sensitive or inadequately modeled?

Wasn’t it obvious from my prior comments on this topic? The only reason why I quote the satellite records at all is because (a) they are a product of anti-AGW scientists, so are more likely to be accepted as true by “skeptics” who dismiss GISS completely while ignoring the facts that the GISS source code and all raw data have been available for years now (while the satellite data has not) and (b) they are immune to UHI and microsite issues that are used by “skeptics” to discredit GISS. So the fact that they confirm GISS should be just as persuasive to real sceptics as their disagreement with GISS was to “skeptics” a decade ago, but, funnily enough, they are not – the goalposts simply moved.

Personally I’d take GISS every time – it’s based on direct measurements of temperature (rather than complicated temperature reconstructions from microwave emissions of oxygen molecules at a broad range of heights in the atmosphere), the source code, data, and techniques are all publicly available, and no significant error in its results has ever been found. None of that is true for the satellite records.

 

[JasonSB]

Of course you would find confusion in my critique of the question you presented, “Human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals.”, as being evidence that it reflects on the American view of evolution. The confusion however, is in your own subjectivity.

Then it’s a shame you made no attempt to explain away my confusion by answering my questions. None of the statements you made had any bearing on the question.

FIRST a warning note: The theory of evolution is banned from CAF - This is why I presented no views, other than directed toward the question asked and conclusions made.

Thanks for the tip. I tried to find out more about this and unfortunately couldn’t find any reference to Evolution being banned at all – in fact, I actually found threads discussing it and the Church’s position on it. So perhaps you could point me to the relevant source?

It also seems odd that a Catholic forum would ban discussion of a theory that the Church has unequivocally stated is “more than a hypothesis”, has significant arguments in favor of it, and is not in conflict with “the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation”.

It my post ] pointed to the flaws within the question,

Well, you see, the problem is that it didn’t. It made a number of statements that had nothing to do with the theory at all. What does the amount of DNA we have in common with various species have to do with the question? The question could have been formulated as-is before the existance of DNA was even known! (A spectacular confirmation, as it turns out – the theory was formulated long before the mechanism was discovered.) The question was simple, the meaning of the words “developed” and “species” are exactly the same meanings used in everyday language, and your questions were confused.

Since you attempted to use this question as written “presented” above, by you ] AND the resulting poll and summery, as evidential evidence for your claim, it goes to your credibility as an “objective scientist” and your skill in critical thinking.

It certainly does. I presented a graph from an article in Science Magazine that directly supported my hypothesis. You responded with questions and statements that suggest you are confused by simple words with well-understood meanings like “species”. The fact that you think this casts doubts on my credibility or objectivity merely casts doubts on yours.

Instead of addressing my findings in the flaws of the question asked or the flaws that could be in assigning this poll as evidential evidence - you attempt to sidestep once again ].

Asking you flat out to explain what on earth you are talking about because your questions are completely irrelevant is not “sidestepping”. Refusing to answer those questions and insisting that they revealed mysterious “flaws” in the question is sidestepping.

“Human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals.” goes right to the heart of Evolution. The whole point of Evolution is that species mutate over time into new species, so if you disagree with that statement then you don’t accept Evolution and the poll is a perfectly valid way of finding out the level of acceptance of the theory.

I have presented facts directed at the flaws in both the question and results as well as using the results as evidence to support your claims.

No, you have asked a bunch of irrelevant questions (e.g. “If I think humans share 98.4% DNA structure to other species chimpanzees ] but it’s the 1.6% that differentiates us from animals - how do I answer?”) and made a whole bunch of irrelevant statements (e.g. “The problem is one of reductionism in this question, the idea that beings can be reduced to merely their parts.”) that have absolutely nothing to do with the given statement.

The confusion ONLY arises when you, a “scientist” tries to misdirect, IMO.

What misdirection? You are the one who tried to bring in a whole bunch of completely irrelevant questions and statements that should not affect your answer to the question one little bit if you actually understood what the question was asking.

Fact: The question is flawed as per my post ].

Fact: The question is fine. Your understanding of the question and possibly of Evolution seems flawed.

Fact:The author does have a bias toward more American funding of science.

Are you suggesting that he fabricated the results of the poll? Do you have any evidence that suggests the results are wrong? Do you think that Evolution is widely accepted in America?

Fact:The summary can be just as flawed.
Fact: Because of these easily seen flaws by anyone with a critic eye / mind, I can expect that any reasoning, objective scientist, dismiss it as evidential evidence.

So your entire line of argument is that you think that it’s flawed, you think any reasoning, objective scientist would agree with you, and therefore anyone who disagrees is not a reasoning, objective scientist. QED.

Which logical fallacy is that one again?

 

[JasonSB]

Ahhhhhh… Just what do you think in science - is settled?

It surely isn’t AGW, for one.

Why are you side-stepping my question? You keep calling AGW an “unproven hypothesis”. What, in your opinion, is not an “unproven hypothesis”? The reason I ask is because judging from your use of the phrase it seems everything is.

I’ve tried to help you before with the differences between hypothesis and theory. An hypothesis can not pass falsifiability. A theory can - BUT it still isn’t settled.

You know, in order to communicate, we have to avoid simply making up meanings for words as we go along.

For example, a “hypothesis” is a proposed explanation for certain facts or observations. It is not “a theory” that “cannot pass falsifiability”. If it is not falsifiable then it is not a scientific hypothesis. Since AGW can be falsified, as I explained to you many times before, it automatically qualifies as a scientific hypothesis, just as the hypothesis that the sun was causing recent warming qualifies as a scientific hypothesis.

A scientific theory is a scientific hypothesis that has survived experimental testing. It should be consistent with pre-existing theories to the extent that they were experimentally verified, supported by many strands of evidence, be the most parsimonious explanation if possible, etc. Since AGW has made numerous predictions well before any evidence was available to confirm those predictions and those predictions were subsequently confirmed, and it is not only consistent with existing theories (like the absorption properties of greenhouse gasses) but actually is based on them, and is supported by everything from melting ice caps, to direct measurements of IR both leaving the Earth and returning to the Earth’s surface, and to reconstructions of the Earth’s climate over hundreds of millions of years, then in every meaningful definition of the phrase, AGW is a scientific theory.

The hypothesis that the sun was responsible for recent warming, on the other hand, was disproven by direct observations of the sun’s activity over the last 30 years and proxy records of the sun’s activity over the last 60. Prior to then, however, the sun was largely responsible because GHG’s had not yet accumulated to the levels where they would become the dominant driver of climate change and the sun actually was increasing its output.

In light of that, your constant claims that AGW is not falsifiable and is an “unproven hypothesis” look – well, pretty silly.

 

[JasonSB]

Speaking of bias, there is a very interesting article in this month’s Atlantic magazine and although it is specifically about medical science there is every reason to believe that the author’s conclusions would be applicable to other branches of science as well (can you spell AGW?).

In the paper, Ioannidis laid out a detailed mathematical proof that, assuming modest levels of researcher bias, typically imperfect research techniques, and the well-known tendency to focus on exciting rather than highly plausible theories, researchers will come up with wrong findings most of the time. Simply put, if you’re attracted to ideas that have a good chance of being wrong, and if you’re motivated to prove them right, and if you have a little wiggle room in how you assemble the evidence, you’ll probably succeed in proving wrong theories right.

theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/8269

This article is of course proof of nothing at all regarding AGW but it is highly suggestive that the same forces that influence bad science in medical research are probably just as likely to lead to the same bad results in other fields, and let’s face it, there is a lot of motivation to prove that the theory of AGW is right.

Ender

Given the financial incentives and level of fame associated with being an anti-AGW’er, I would rephrase that slightly:

“This article is of course proof of nothing at all regarding AGW but it is highly suggestive that the same forces that influence bad science in medical research are probably just as likely to lead to the same bad results in other fields, and let’s face it, there is a lot of motivation to prove that the theory of AGW is wrong.”

Would we have ever heard of Pat “C’mon he’s a circuit lecturer” Michaels or Timothy “I’ve been a -]Professor of Climatology for 32 years/-] Professor of Geography for 8 years” Ball if they didn’t dispute the consensus? Would Pat have been able to ask for cash and had $150k simply handed over to him if he was conducting actual research that might support the theory?

If you’re a bright, young graduate, and you want to make a lot of money, you head to Wall St. (At least, you did – not sure what they’re doing now.) If you want to make quite a bit of money and become famous, interviewed on TV every time someone makes a new claim about AGW, you become a “skeptic”. If you simply want to know the truth, you do actual research and see where the results lead. If you’re unlucky, you’ll be just another “Yep, me too” that produces the results that support the existing evidence. If you’re really, really lucky, you’ll discover some serious flaw in the existing theory and become famous for it.

Unfortunately for all of us, nobody has been really, really lucky yet.

 

[kimmielittle]

Then it’s a shame you made no attempt to explain away my confusion by answering my questions. None of the statements you made had any bearing on the question.

I’m sorry that once again, there seems to be a comprehension problem on your part.
Your questions had no bearing on my post. My post dealt with your Poll and it’s usage as evidential evidence.

Your questions to MY POST tried to misdirect from the inherit flaws I presented of that poll and it’s leading question.

Thanks for the tip. I tried to find out more about this and unfortunately couldn’t find any reference to Evolution being banned at all – in fact, I actually found threads discussing it and the Church’s position on it. So perhaps you could point me to the relevant source?

It has been banned, and to my knowledge, not lifted since Oct of 2009.

It also seems odd that a Catholic forum would ban discussion of a theory that the Church has unequivocally stated is “more than a hypothesis”, has significant arguments in favor of it, and is not in conflict with “the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation”.

I suggest you take it up with the Moderators. Atheism was also banned at the same time.
Dec 21, '09, 3:39 pm
Jo Benedict’s Avatar
Super Moderator
Exclamation warning: Temporary Ban on Evolution/Atheism Threads.

I might also warn you about the rules of taking a thread - off topic. This is “Catholicism and Climate Change”.

Well, you see, the problem is that it didn’t. It made a number of statements that had nothing to do with the theory at all.

Because, once again, you seem at a standstill with comprehension. Go back and look. My whole post went to the credibility of the question as presented, within your poll, and** assigning credibility of the poll as evidential evidence of it’s findings**. That’s why it didn’t have anything to do with the theory of evolution. Simply put for you - I wasn’t addressing the theory of evolution, and within this thread… won’t!

I was addressing the value of the question asked and resulting outcome of issuing credence as evidence. I’m sorry, that you are having such a hard time understanding this.

What does the amount of DNA we have in common with various species have to do with the question? The question could have been formulated as-is before the existance of DNA was even known! (A spectacular confirmation, as it turns out – the theory was formulated long before the mechanism was discovered.)

The question alone

"Human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals."

“AS WE KNOW THEM” - is present tense. It depends upon knowledge today - WHICH INCLUDES, knowledge of DNA. AND DNA is used by evolutionists, as supporting evidence.

The question was simple, the meaning of the words “developed” and “species” are exactly the same meanings used in everyday language, and your questions were confused.

Actually, what I said.

The question and resulting answer would depend on attitude or opinion of / to the definitions of the words ** “animal”** and “developed”.

It seems, once again, confusion on your part arises, you have confused “species” to my word “animal”.

It certainly does. I presented a graph from an article in Science Magazine that directly supported my hypothesis.

Actually, once again you are confused…Your graph was not from Science Magazine go back and look ] It was from the purveyors to the world and presented as fact, the
Archaeoraptor

—National Geographic recants!

Here is your link you provided… news.nationalgeographic.com/news/bigphotos/images/060810-evolution_big.jpg

Which leads to the story at National Geographic here news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060810-evolution.html

Note: I do not disagree that this study was also presented in other publications - Just your facts, are once again, confused.

You responded with questions and statements that suggest you are confused by simple words with well-understood meanings like “species”.

Once again, **“Human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals.” - **the question doesn’t designate which species - it is form of reductionism, within the question.

“Animals” plural ]…reductionism. Animals become human - humans are animals.

“Animals” plural ] pertains to ALL species of animals.

What would be the outcome if I asked:

According to the theory of evolution, human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals?

OR
According to the theory of evolution, human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals related to the chimpanzee family?

Hint: The score jumps dramatically. The 2004 Michigan Survey of Consumer Attitudes PS Dr Jon Millers home state ].

**“Human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals.”

**The question, as presented, demands a statement of fact i.e. “I believe the statement is true” - NOT KNOWLEDGE OF EVOLUTION. Two, very different and separate things. Did you, a scientist, not understand this?

The fact that you think this casts doubts on my credibility or objectivity merely casts doubts on yours.

The fact that you can not see the error in using this as evidential evidence to your claims, as a “scientist” AND persistence in arguing for this study by your usage of it as evidential evidence, says much about your critical / objectivity. And is amplified by you, being a scientist.

I’m allowed to have oppsies - I don’t present myself as a scientist. You are debating pseudo -science unproven hypothesis as being factual - you can not.

 

[kimmielittle]

Why are you side-stepping my question? You keep calling AGW an “unproven hypothesis”. What, in your opinion, is not an “unproven hypothesis”? The reason I ask is because judging from your use of the phrase it seems everything is.

AGW is one… and the only one that pertains to this thread - Offer evidence, Mr scientist, that I have referred to anything, other than AGW, as an unproven hypothesis. Another lapse or confusion affecting your critical objectivity?

By projecting / predicting just about everything, as AGW / Climate Change has, it leaves nothing to use to measure predictability or projections.

According to Popper it’s not science if the theory isn’t incompatible with certain possible results of observation. What possible results of observation could you show that would be incompatible with AGW / Climate Change?

Provide this, and you raise the unproven hypothesis of AGW from pseudo-science to science.

AGW will be more than an unproven hypothesis . When someone can show a peer reviewed paper that 1] Provides replicable evidence for its conclusions 2] Presents a prediction that will lead to AGW being rejected. 3] Analysis observations and conclusions, based on a previously acknowledged statistical test, that there is a >95% probability that human activities and CO2 have produced a measurable effect on global climate and they, alone, are responsible. Not a 95% estimate but an actual 95% probability. That’s the evidence that Is required to accept everything else as science. AGW isn’t allowed a lowered standard.

 

[JasonSB]

I’m sorry that once again, there seems to be a comprehension problem on your part.

No. I understand the poll question. You, clearly, do not, as evidenced by all your questions asking how you should answer.

It has been banned, and to my knowledge, not lifted since Oct of 2009.

I suggest you take it up with the Moderators. Atheism was also banned at the same time.
Dec 21, '09, 3:39 pm
Jo Benedict’s Avatar
Super Moderator
Exclamation warning: Temporary Ban on Evolution/Atheism Threads.

Since you didn’t provide a link, I did a Google search and the only thing I could find was a post matching your description that applied to the Philosophy forum: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=408684. It’s a sticky post on that forum, it specifically mentions it applies to that forum, and I could find no similar post applying here.

I might also warn you about the rules of taking a thread - off topic. This is “Catholicism and Climate Change”.

And who did that?

I posted a simple, one-sentence statement on my motives for posting here rather than WUWT or RC: “Instead I choose to post here – a place where most scientists wouldn’t bother posting. I am a scientist, and I have always been proud of the modern Catholic stance towards science, defending Catholicism against fellow scientists as being the most “rational” religion, so I was disconcerted when I saw exactly the same kind of thinking on this thread that I only previously associated with American Evangelical Christians.”

Since it is my statement of my motives, and since nobody but me truly knows what my motives are, it would be reasonable to assume that the statement is final.

But apparently not; you responded with an entire post attacking that one statement and accused me of making “A shameless attempt to to demean Both American Evangelical Christians AND anyone who disagrees with what has been presented thus far”.

I responded by pointing out that “the anti-science thinking that is so common in American Evangelical Christians is both well-known and well-documented” and, by way of example, pointed to the results of a peer-reviewed scientific study on the acceptance of Evolution in the American adult population vs a range of other countries – a study which found that the reason for the relatively low level of acceptance of Evolution in Americans was due to the prevalence of fundamentalists who interpret the Bible literally in America vs mainstream Protestants and Catholics that dominate elsewhere who “have not seen a major contradiction between their faith and the work of Darwin and other scientists”.

In other words, exactly my point.

You responded again by asking a whole host of questions in relation to one of the poll questions they used – questions that make no sense to someone who actually understands the poll question. When I tried to point that out, you accused me of being confused and warned me about taking the thread off-topic.

Well, excuse me. If you don’t want me to answer, however, perhaps you shouldn’t question?

Because, once again, you seem at a standstill with comprehension. Go back and look. My whole post went to the credibility of the question as presented, within your poll, and** assigning credibility of the poll as evidential evidence of it’s findings**.

And, as I repeatedly said, your post was nonsensical. Again – the percentage of DNA you share with various species has nothing to do with it. Your questions about how you should answer that simple question made no sense.

That’s why it didn’t have anything to do with the theory of evolution. Simply put for you - I wasn’t addressing the theory of evolution, and within this thread… won’t!

The problem is that your post says nothing about the credibilty of that question in regards to discerning acceptance of Evolution and says everything about your understanding of what Evolution actually is.

The question alone “AS WE KNOW THEM” - is present tense. It depends upon knowledge today - WHICH INCLUDES, knowledge of DNA. AND DNA is used by evolutionists, as supporting evidence.

“Human beings, as we know them” means nothing more and nothing less than the species that every person in the whole world belongs to – Homo sapiens. It’s purely to make sure that the person answering the question knows exactly who the subject of the question is.

Actually, what I said.

The question and resulting answer would depend on attitude or opinion of / to the definitions of the words “animal” and “developed”.

It seems, once again, confusion on your part arises, you have confused “species” to my word “animal”.

You obviously forgot that you also said “If I think animals are a different species of life than humans - how do I answer?” suggesting that you must be using “species” in a somewhat novel way because all animals are different species to humans and it’s irrelevant to the question.

 

[JasonSB]

Actually, once again you are confused…Your graph was not from Science Magazine go back and look ]

I did not say that the graph I linked to was from Science Magazine, I said the graph comes from an article that was published in Science Magazine. And just to be clear, I’m talking about the peer-reviewed journal Science, one of the most prestigious journals in the world.

Here is your link you provided… news.nationalgeographic.com/news/bigphotos/images/060810-evolution_big.jpg

Which leads to the story at National Geographic here news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060810-evolution.html

Which is – wait for it – an article about the study that was published in Science. It even says so on the page you liked! “Led by Jon D. Miller, a political scientist at Michigan State University, the team reports its findings in tomorrow’s issue of the journal Science.”

Note: I do not disagree that this study was also presented in other publications - Just your facts, are once again, confused.

The study was presented in Science. It was reported on widely, including by National Geographic, who conveniently had an image of the graph I could link to. Your claim is simply wrong. Once again.

Once again, **“Human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals.” - **the question doesn’t designate which species - it is form of reductionism, within the question.

“Human beings, as we know them” means nothing more and nothing less than Homo sapiens. They probably thought they were helping out less scientifically-literate people by using everyday language to specify the species in question rather than the technical term.

“earlier species of animals” means any earlier species, i.e. not Homo sapiens. I do not understand why this is so confusing for you.

“developed from” means "descended from’.

So, “Homo sapiens are descended from earlier species that were not Homo sapiens”. It doesn’t matter whether the earlier species are named or not because those who do not accept Evolution will say “No” to that question as-is.

It’s really not that complicated.

“Animals” plural ]…reductionism. Animals become human - humans are animals.

Humans are of the species Homo sapiens, the only extant species in the genus Homo, in the family Hominidae, order Primates, class Mammalia, phylum Chordata, kingdom Animalia. I certainly hope you’re not suggesting humans are plants or fungi, are you? They are different kingdoms in the domain Eukaryota.

“Animals” plural ] pertains to ALL species of animals.

See, that’s exactly what I mean by “confused”. The question is not asking if human beings descend from all species of animals. The fact that you even considered that proves my point.

What would be the outcome if I asked:

According to the theory of evolution, human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals?

That’s a different question – the point was to find out what people believed, not what they think Evolution claims. A Young Earth Creationist who understands Evolution could agree to your question (i.e. that the Theory of Evolution does say that) while not believing it to be true – and that’s my point, which your question would fail to illuminate.

OR
According to the theory of evolution, human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals related to the chimpanzee family?

Chimpanzees aren’t a family, they are two species in the genus Pan of the family Hominidae (i.e. the same family as us, and therefore the same order, class, phylum, kingdom, and domain).

But Evolution does say that all species of life on Earth share a common ancestor – that’s one of its central discoveries. Chimpanzees are also believed to be the closest living relatives of Homo sapiens, and the extant species with which we have the most recent common ancestor – who was exactly as related to modern chimpanzees as it was to mordern humans. (I.e. the most recent common ancestor of humans and chimps was no more a chimp than it was a human).

Still, it’s unrelated to the original question (because, as I said, it was asking what people believed, not what people believe Evolution claims).

Hint: The score jumps dramatically. The 2004 Michigan Survey of Consumer Attitudes PS Dr Jon Millers home state ].

If you want to know whether the American public knows what the science says then your form of the question is better.

But that’s not what my point was. My point was about the attitude towards science, not the knowledge of what it says: “I was disconcerted when I saw exactly the same kind of thinking on this thread that I only previously associated with American Evangelical Christians.” Knowing what the science actually says but rejecting it because it conflicts with your beliefs is exactly what I was talking about.

The fact that the score jumps dramatically proves my point.

**“Human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals.”

**The question, as presented, demands a statement of fact i.e. “I believe the statement is true” - NOT KNOWLEDGE OF EVOLUTION. Two, very different and separate things. Did you, a scientist, not understand this?

Most certainly, which is why it goes directly to the heart of my point, which you clearly do not understand.

 

[JasonSB]

The fact that you can not see the error in using this as evidential evidence to your claims, as a “scientist” AND persistence in arguing for this study by your usage of it as evidential evidence, says much about your critical / objectivity. And is amplified by you, being a scientist.

The fact that you completely misread the point of the example and thought the issue was knowledge of science rather than acceptance of science means you misunderstood everything I said on this, confirming the “doubts” I alluded to.

I’m allowed to have oppsies - I don’t present myself as a scientist. You are debating pseudo -science unproven hypothesis as being factual - you can not.

Everyone is allowed to have oopsies, which is what I presume you meant to type. Even Einstein described an element of his General Theory of Relativity as “the biggest blunder of his life”, because he added it as a fudge factor to account for an apparently static universe and later found that it was unnecessary because the universe was actually expanding. Ironically, his “greatest blunder” is now back in to account for the expansion accelerating instead of slowing down.

To err is human and scientists are no exception. However, in this case, the error is not mine.

 

[portarica]

Jason,

It doesn’t matter anymore, after the elections Carl Rove told a meeting of natural gas producers that the “climate is dead” as far as an issue that the oil and gas interests will have to deal with.

If Carl Rove says it, it must be true. After all he puts his mouth where the money is.

Peace

 

[JasonSB]

AGW is one… and the only one that pertains to this thread - Offer evidence, Mr scientist, that I have referred to anything, other than AGW, as an unproven hypothesis.

It’s a simple question. Why are you avoiding it?

By projecting / predicting just about everything, as AGW / Climate Change has, it leaves nothing to use to measure predictability or projections.

AGW clearly does not predict “just about everything”. If you know so little of the theory, how on Earth can you comment on it?

According to Popper it’s not science if the theory isn’t incompatible with certain possible results of observation. What possible results of observation could you show that would be incompatible with AGW / Climate Change?

Seriously? How many times do I have to list the predictions made by AGW that were subsequently confirmed by direct obseravtion? If the observation was the opposite for any one of those then it would have shown the theory was incorrect. If you are going to post in a public forum, it’s only polite to read the public forum as well. It’s not a write-only medium.

Here’s a list generated from my most recent list of predictions that confirmed AGW:

1. AGW predicts that night-time minimums will rise faster than day-time maximums. Observations of the opposite effect would have been incompatible with AGW.
2. AGW predicts that polar regions will warm faster than the equator. Observations of the opposite effect would have been incompatible with AGW.
3. AGW predicts that satellites will measure less heat escaping into space at the precise wavelengths that CO2 absorbs. Observations of the opposite effect would have been incompatible with AGW.
4. AGW predicts that surface measurements would find this heat returning to earth to warm the surface. Observations of the opposite effect would have been incompatible with AGW.
5. AGW predicts that the stratosphere will cool while the troposphere warms. Observations of the opposite effect would have been incompatible with AGW.
6. AGW predicts that the tropopause should rise because of the warming troposphere and cooling stratosphere. Observations of the opposite effect would have been incompatible with AGW.

All of these were tested and found to be exactly as predicted by AGW. It survived the testing.

Here is another one that admittedly takes longer but that doesn’t mean the theory is not falsifiable:

1. 30 years of statistically signficant cooling that was not accompanied by a corresponding reduction in one of the known forcings would have been incompatible with AGW. (20 years would be enough to cast serious doubt but would not be as definitive because it can still happen purely due to internal variability.)

Another obvious one:

1. AGW predicts that increasing emissions of greenhouse gasses will cause the concentrations of those gasses to increase in the atmosphere. If CO2 levels had remained constant despite our emissions then it would have shown the environment was capable of absorbing them and would have been incompatible with AGW.

Provide this, and you raise the unproven hypothesis of AGW from pseudo-science to science.

OK, well let’s see if this time you accept the obvious.

AGW will be more than an unproven hypothesis . When someone can show a peer reviewed paper that 1] Provides replicable evidence for its conclusions 2] Presents a prediction that will lead to AGW being rejected. 3] Analysis observations and conclusions, based on a previously acknowledged statistical test, that there is a >95% probability that human activities and CO2 have produced a measurable effect on global climate and they, alone, are responsible. Not a 95% estimate but an actual 95% probability.

Almost all papers satisfy (1).

I don’t know of any papers that satisfy (2) but perhaps you meant “Presents a prediction that, if found to be false, will lead to AGW being rejected”. All of the items in the list above have been predicted at one point or another.

(3) is non-sensical because AGW does not predict that human activity, alone, is responsible. It not only lists many factors that have contributed to climate change but also quantifies them. If you want to disprove some fantasy theory that’s your business but please don’t call it AGW or you’ll just confuse everybody.

That’s the evidence that Is required to accept everything else as science

Really? Where did you read that?

What’s the actual probability that the Theory of Relativity is correct?

What’s the actual probability that Quantum Theory is correct?

AGW isn’t allowed a lowered standard.

Ha! If it would only be held to the same standard it would be a major breakthrough. Sadly, as long as some people choose to reject it purely and simply because it is funded, with no evidence of actual malfeasance, I can’t see that happening.