Monday, October 29, 2007

Sorry Al, But The Debate Is NOT Over

It is pretty disgusting to see school children brainwashed by this rubbish junk science. You ought to make sure that your child gets both sides of the debate. Don't allow your child to live in fear and worry, especially over this nonsense. It borders on criminal for Al Gore and his ilk to be brainwashing and scaring little school children! This is the same man whose own personal energy use dwarfs that of the average citizen.

What's worse is that scientists are being silenced and threatened.
Is this what the scientific community has come to?
I thought the church in medieval times was evil to stifle astronomical and scientific advances by people like Galileo, but now fanatic environmentalists and people in the IPCC are assuming that role.
They are blaming mankind, technology, and they are even changing the way science is practiced.
Bogus theories are allowed to be heralded as fact.
Case in point, Gore's timeline showing CO2 and temperature - he neglects to point out that rise in CO2 levels come AFTER temperature changes NOT BEFORE!
The scientific method is becoming bastardized for the sake of monetary gain.

Should we recycle and use resources wisely - sure.
Should we work towards clean water and air - certainly.
Should we minimize the number of trees we cut down - probably
But those are all facets of wise stewardship of our home.

Is climate changing?
Perhaps... but not because of mankind and CO2, or the result of modern technology.
It isn't because we fail to install the new mercury filled lightbulbs in our homes or drive an expensive Prius.

Climatic cycles have been happening for millions of years.
Species die and new ones evolve.
Land masses come and go.
Waters recede and then swell.
Ice caps melt and then they freeze again.
We have ice ages and then warm spells.
Mankind and technology were not the reasons for that happening.

The IPCC should be ashamed of themselves.
They should be ashamed of themselves for shutting down any debate on the issue.

The debate is far from over!

(H/T California Yankee)


Sandy said...

Thanks for the links. I've posted Demand Debate on my blog and linked back to you here. My kids are going to love that site. Must buy the beach ball.

Elisheva Hannah Levin said...

I started to write a comment on this, but it has gotten too long and I think I will make it a post instead.

The upshot of what I was writing, though, is that planetary climate change is ongoing since the earth's formation over 3.5 billion years ago. Human life span is so very short compared to geologic time that we have a hard time imagining that things were very different from how they are now, and likely will be very different in the future, no matter what we do.

As a species, we have been through global warming for the past 10,000 years, and 40,000 years ago, we experienced the beginning of the Wurm (Wisconsinin) glaciation. The former is associated with the agricultural revolution. The latter, with changes in our brain structure leading to modern human culture.

Although important to us here and now, the politics of global climate change will have very little impact on what happens on the earth in the next several thousand years.

jennifer in OR said...

As my husband always says, "Al Gore makes me sick." A few weeks ago, he ordered a video from Demand Debate and we watched it the other night - it's excellent. I'm going to order another video they have geared toward children.

christinemm said...

This video (20/20) is making my blood boil. I will clarify: Al Gore is making my blood boil.

Here in Connecticut we learned when we were kids that this place used to be a rain forest and another time was covered in ice, and that again one day it will be a rain forest. It is not a rain forest today. So in other words, the climate in a region changes over time very slowly.

Dana said...

It gets me that the people who tout this as solid, irrefutable science are the same ones who say that to be Christian and have an understanding of science are mutually exclusive.

Science is about what is observable and measurable, not what is politically expedient. Nor is it about theories which are inherently naturalistic.

Observation and measurement. Where have the real scientists gone? The ones who recognize the difference between a hypothesis and a fact?

Mrs Mecomber said...

Although you are correct that this global warming hype is mere propaganda, I have to dissent with you that species have not died and new ones evolved. This has never been observed, and this kind of junk science is just as unfounded as global warming.

Judy Aron said...

mrs mecomber -

So dinosaurs are still around?
The dodo lives?
Lots of animals have gone extinct.

Sorry - but on this point we disagree.

I happen to believe there is an evolutionary process, as animals have been observed to adapt to their environment. I also think that is part of God's design.

I also happen to believe that you are free to believe as you do, as am I.

Mrs Mecomber said...

Sorry, you said SPECIES were extinct. You listed animals. Nonetheless, extinction is not evidence of evolution.

Oh yeah, micro-evolution (adaptation) is everywhere. But macro-evolution is false. The two are frequently confused. Adaptation is observed all the time. But macro-evolution (the changing one one plant or animal into another different species of plant or animal) is within the realm of philosophy.

Sorry, I don't recall forbidding you to believe in anything, or you forbidding me to believe in anything... didn't mean to ruffle your feathers!

Judy Aron said...

mrs mecomber you did not ruffle my feathers at all. Debating the issues is what this post what initially about.

The dodo is Species: R. cucullatus. It is an extinct species in the Kingdom of Animalia.
Species is one of the basic units of biological classification, and science has shown that certain species have already gone extinct - for example, here's a list of extinct bird species.

How do you know macro evolution is false if micro evolution exists? Macro evolution is said to be the compunding effects of micro evolution. Paleontology, evolutionary developmental biology, comparative genomics and genomic phylostratigraphy contribute most of the evidence for the patterns and processes that can be classified as macroevolution. An example of macroevolution is the appearance of feathers during the evolution of birds from one group of dinosaurs.

You may disagree with what mainstream science has discovered with regard to macro evolution and of course that is fine, but for me I think that the evolutionary process has been built into God's design and the changes in biodiversity over time are enough evidence of that for me.

Mrs Mecomber said...

Yes, this is a very good post and thanks for opening it up to discussion.

The existence of micro-evolution in no way is evidence for macro-evolution. That takes a tremendous leap of blind faith. Besides, macro-evolution has never been observed, and some say this makes it "unscientific." Patterns are evidence more in favor of design, not evolution.

There is absolutely no solid evidence for the evolution of feathers, sorry. No transitional fossils, either. It is mere "belief," or, as I earlier stated, "philosophy."

Have you ever read about Michael Behe's irreducible complexity theory? It is very compelling. Also, I have found much good reasoning from Philip Johnson's books; I am reading "Reason in the Balance" which is excellent. Johnson also wrote the much acclaimed "Darwin's Black Box." Dean Kenyon, that great biophysicist, (he is well known for writing "Biological Presdestination" and then regretting he'd written it) also has much to say since he taught evolution for decades before coming to the conclusion of Isaac Newton: "The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being." Or as another wise man said: No wise and benevolent Creator would ever go about creation in such a slow and inefficient manner.

Elisheva Hannah Levin said...

Oh, and Judy, there is another issue here.

There are good reasons for reducing the amount of energy we consume by conserving and developing new technology that have nothing to do with scaring children about rapid sea-level rises. Energy independence from middle eastern oil would do a great deal to make our nation more secure and encourage use of a sensible foreign policy in the region, because we would not be dependent on Saudi Arabian oil barons and the like in other countries. (Let's not forget that the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi).

However, we do not need to outlaw incandescent bulbs to make this happen. In fact, we should not allow the government to set the direction for development of new technology. The market, through what economists call 'creative destruction,' is much more likely to encourage the development of new technology that can take us where we want to go at a lower price.

Elisheva Hannah Levin said...

Mrs. Mecomber--

Adaptation to a novel environment is a mechanism for the evolution of species. A good definition for evolution is the change in gene frequencies in populations over time. Adaptation is essentially selection--a process by which the gene frequencies of a population change in response to changes in the environment. If there is also genetic isolation, the gene frequencies change to the point that the isolated population can no longer breed and produce viable offspring with other populations of the species. At this point, speciation has occured.

You are also mistaken that there is no evidence for speciation. There is much evidence from multiple disciplines: genetics, paleontology, anthropology, and biochemistry. The richness of the evidence is such that the issue is not even debated in these fields. Rather, the arguments are more about how and when and how fast speciation occurs.

Judy Aron said...

Elisheva - I absolutely agree that we have to diversify our energy sources. I am all for getting off of dependence of Saudi oil - as well as Venezuelan oil and so on.

I'd love to see more bio fuels and other technologies.
We are really in a transition phase between fossil fuel dependency to a switch to a hydrogen fuel economy. It takes lots of money, investment, and phasing in of these new energy technologies. Wind, solar, etc. are all ways to diversify our energy resources.

Rather than conserve - I'd love to see us be able to use as much energy as we like for as cheaply as possible. Especially since our economy is energy driven.

Mrs Mecomber said...

You've piqued my interest. Exactly what evidence is there for evolution? I'd like to know. There is no solid consensus about it at all, however. Just as some claim a "consensus" for man-made global warming (and there isn't one), I always hear that evolution is not even debated anymore because there is so much evidence. We've been studying the topic for years and have found nothing conclusive, only more and more dissention. Thanks.

mccommas said...

I am in an Environmential Issues class and the teach said the ice age ended in... I forget whether its 18 something or 19 something.

I have not been able to verify it but suffice to say that the last ice age ended only at the most 200 years ago.

So that would explain a mere 1 degree change in the weather over the last 100 years.

-- Not to much to be alarmed about in my book....

There are certainly more important and real issues to be concerned about than the global warming myth.

Science Brainy Guy said...

Think about Charles Darwin when he got to the Galapagos Islands encountering creatures like Galapagos tortises and Komodo dragons - creatures he could classify as tortises and lizards, but still very different from anything he, and most of the civilized world, had never seen. The Galapagos Islands were a "novel environment." Perhaps these tortises and lizards had ancestors, say, in South America, but something happened that caused some of them to be separated and end up on these faraway islands. Because of differences in the environments, these separated tortises and lizards developed differently as they adapted to the new environment.

I can't do a thorough job from here, but suffice it to say what's being discussed is what Darwinist dissidents and others call 'microevolution'. It happens. It's a good thing. It's interesting to study and try to understand what happens genetically to cause these adaptations. Adaptation to various environments probably explains a lot about the differences in human characteristics. But humans are humans, birds and birds, turtles are turtles. And humans have had human fossils, birds have had bird fossils, and turtles have had turtle fossils. There are no half-bird/half- turtle fossils at varying degrees of evolution. There is no evidence.

----> Therefore, the problem with Darwinists is their efforts to account for the different 'types' (as in Genesis) of creatures; not that there is variation, often very marked, within those types.

Everyone seems to have different definitions for "evolution" and it is important at the outset of discussion to determine the meaning of this term. The process of adaptation in no way confirms that philosophy of the changing of one "species" of plant or animal to another plant or animal (macro-evolution). It has never been observed, not now and not previously. Nor does it confirm cosmic evolution (big Bang), chemical evolution, planetary evolution (formation of stars, etc), organic evolution (life from rocks and etc) as Darwinists are now insisting that it does.

Something also to note - I'd read differing opinions and questions on the idea of "species." Scientists today do not even agree on a solid definition of 'species' (note Elisheva's comment at the end about arguing over when speciation occurs). 'Types' were created by God, evidently with the genetic capacity for great variations (!!). Darwinian evolution fails in trying to explain the reason for these 'types'. It has tried ... and been found wanting.

In closing, the mere fact that the laws of nature exist scream out against evolution. Where does intelligence come from? Law? Reason? Thoughts? Gravity? Light? Water? Some people straddle the fence and say the Deity got the ball rolling, but this is not the God evident in creation, who is extremely efficient and diverse, and if He is truly God, able. And if God could even spark the process of evolution, why would He want to use such a mutant, slow, and death-aided process?

Judy Aron said...

Well guys and gals, suffice it to say everyone seems to have their own opinions and ideas regarding how flora and fauna arrived to be what it is today. I doubt we will solve the issue here and I also doubt anyone's minds will be changed here.

I appreciate the comments, but I personally choose not to continue to participate in this particular discussion about Darwinian evolution vs. Creationism - so other than that if you wish to continue to post among yourselves feel free - but please keep it friendly and free of any demeaning or personal affronts (not that there have been any up to now - and thanks for that!).

Aside from all of that - with regard to my initial post I believe Al Gore's science about global warming to be incorrect and it needs to be coupled with the opposing viewpoint when presented to anyone - especially children.

I will close my comment here with Einstein's quote:
Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind