I
ordinarily try to keep my posts to about two typed pages. You might
think that sounds easy because whenever I write on a topic, I seldom
have trouble deciding what to say about it. Instead, I usually have
trouble deciding what to leave out. The consequence of this is that
no matter how well I may (or may not) have made a point, I'm usually
unsatisfied with the end product. There's always more I wished I'd
said. I had not intended to make this a two part post but it seems
I've stirred up little controversy of my own with my first post. So,
I'm going to add a few more comments that I could have said in my
first post.
For
what it's worth, here are some of my thoughts about global warming.
First, I'm a little puzzled why some scientists are so alarmed about
a slight increase in the average global temperature over the last
century or so. Don't most of these people also believe the earth is
4.5 billion years old? If that were true, then a century or two
isn't a long enough period of time to be statistically significant.
It's less than blip. Such a small sample is not sufficient to
establish a trend but even assuming we can identify a trend how
confident should we be in the measurements anyway? 100 years ago we
had no satellites, no weather stations in Antarctica, or a fraction
of the technology available to us now. Bill Clinton once said the
90's was the warmest decade of the last 500 years. Really? So when
Columbus arrived in North America in 1492, did he ask the natives to
begin recording temperature changes? I'm sure Captain Cook got the
Aborigines busy in Australia but who was measuring the temperature at
the poles about this time? Any warming trend seen in our
measurements could be nothing more than more accurate measurements.
Secondly,
I would like to point out that most people agree there was at least
one ice age in the past. Do global warming alarmists lament the
disappearance of glaciers from the lower 48 states? Certainly that
warming trend wasn't the result of human activity – or did the
Neanderthal equivalent of Al Gore run around telling other people to
stop cooking their food because the fires were melting the ice? If
there have been periods of cooling and warming in the past, why are
some people surprised to see it happening now (assuming that it is
happening)?
And
speaking of Al Gore, this brings me to my final point: Al Gore once
said that the earth was sick – “it has a fever”. Doesn't such
a statement presuppose that we know what the ideal temperature of the
earth should be. Well, what is it? Was the earth at its ideal
temperature 100 or so years ago before the supposed trend began? Is
it what the temperature is right now? Was the earth at its ideal
temperature at the peak of the last ice age? Maybe the earth is
heading toward the temperature it is “supposed” to be. And, of
course, if warming and cooling is the usual condition of the earth
over its (alleged) billions of years history, then our herculean
efforts to reverse the current warming trend is for naught. Our
efforts would be better spent preparing for life in a warmer world.
By
the way, maybe a warmer world wouldn't be so bad. I hear people
talking about “greenhouse gases” but do they understand that
plants grow like crazy in greenhouses? Perhaps we could grow more
food all year around. Maybe a more temperate climate would help us
turn uninhabitable deserts into lush gardens. Maybe the polar caps
could be turned into farm land.
Of
course, many people disagree with me. I know because they've told me
so; rather, I've been called, “a stupid, ignorant, lying,
science-hater.” But tell me the truth: in spite of our
disagreements, am I really being unreasonable by just asking these
questions or having these doubts? I've asked these questions before
and so have many others and I've not heard satisfactory answers. In
many cases, I've not been given any answer. So is there something
wrong with doubting? Even more than that, what is wrong with
disagreeing?
This
then, brings me back to the point of my post – the regime of the
science Nazis. You see, to them, discussion is only allowed in the
scientific community. Lay people (i.e. the masses) must comply with
scientific consensus. You cannot question the establishment. You
cannot hold personal beliefs contradictory to their agenda.
Ask
yourself this: why exactly have they cast their lot so strongly
one-sided in this debate? This isn't a matter of “religion in
schools,” which is a criticism that has been raised against
creationism. People who are suspect of climate change are objecting
to the conclusions of some scientists but they're not objecting for
religious reasons. There are things they're not convinced about.
Some people don't believe there's a warming trend, or that it's
man-made, or they may believe spending billions of dollars to reverse
what is occurring naturally would be a huge waste of resources.
These are scientific questions. These are political questions.
They're not religious questions. Then why does the quasi-scientific
group NCSE and others like them seek to squelch the debate?
Remember
that the Nature article said, “25–30%
of [surveyed] respondents reported that students, parents,
administrators or other community members had argued with [educators]
that climate change is not happening or that it is not the result of
human activity.”
Assuming that statistic is 100% accurate, what is the controversy?
Are these educators so elite that they feel they must bring in the
big guns to figure out how to keep people from disagreeing with them?
Scott said their group is not a political think-tank. That's a lie.
Their group is nothing else but a think-tank seeking ways to advance
a liberal agenda. In the case of climate change, they have thrown
their hat into the ring of a controversial, political issue and seek
to equip educators with arguments to silence opposition. Would we
stand still if an economics teacher sought advice from China on how
to deal with his students who feel capitalism is superior to
socialism?
If
you are not convinced, let me ask also why educators believe it is a
“threat” that school boards ask that they “teach the
controversy”? If up to 1/3 of the teachers have been challenged
about a controversial issue, then obviously a sizable percentage of
the public questions it. As I asked in my reply to Steven J's
comment, “Is it really better to teach kids to simply trust the
overwhelming majority of scientists rather than teach them to
consider both sides of an controversial issue like global warming?”
Apparently these schools think so and so are not interested in
presenting the evidence but rather want to allow kids to hear only a
single view of the evidence. I would expect schools to be objective
and noncommittal in such divisive issues. For school boards to ask
teachers to present both sides of a controversial issue is only a
threat if someone is afraid of students hearing both sides. Let me
also remind you that it is precisely the job of the school boards and
parents in the community to establish school curriculum. No matter
how enlightened they think they are, it is not a “right” of the
establishment to demand students be taught only what the scientific
elite deems to be correct.
I
don't mind having a discussion about global warming. I very much
mind schools resorting to Scott and her ilk to figure out ways to end
discussion. That's not an education. It's indoctrination.
4 comments:
There are multiple sides to nearly any issue. There are multiple sides to the question of whether the Earth orbits the sun (see, e.g. the writings of Gerardus Bouw), but that does not mean that all sides are of equal merit. And given the paucity of time in schools, the necessity of merely sampling the evidence available on many questions (do you think history classes have the time available to teach all the evidence for, say, the Holocaust?), giving "both sides" will in many cases falsely imply some equality in the amount and quality of evidence for each side.
You statement that, if the Earth is 4.55 billion years old, a century or two is not statistically significant, seems to rest on some assumption you are not making explicit. If you mean, we cannot on the basis of a couple of centuries worth of data predict the climate a million years from now, I suspect you are right. But we have to make it through the next century, or the next millennium, before we worry about a million years from now.
I do not know the source of Clinton's statements, but some hint of past climate conditions can be found in, e.g. comparisons of tree rings over the centuries: broader rings imply hotter summers. And the Europeans, at least, have kept some sort of records for longer than that.
The question of an "ideal temperature" rather misses the point: there are different ideal climates for different species, and an increase in average global temperature will alter all sorts of local environments. Some organisms will try to migrate; some will become extinct, locally or even globally. The overall effects could be very inconvenient to us.
There have been significant climate shifts in the past: not only ice ages, but periods when the Earth was significantly warmer than now (tropical forests in Great Britain, for example). That life and the Earth will, eventually, be able to adapt to any plausible near-term climate changes does not mean that the transition will not be hard on a great many species currently occupying the planet -- Homo sapiens (due to our economic dependence on other species) among them.
To RKBentley and Steven J.
I have been following this blog for a while now, but have never left any comments.
To RKBentley, keep up the good work, it makes more of an impact then you may think.
Note that I am not English so forgive me my syntax errors I may be making (I am originally from South Africa)
Today I decided to see what Steven's blog is about in general, since it will tell me about the person themselve, and whether they not just hear, but also consider what they hear (or read for that matter).
On his blog I stumbled upon this section that states: "Furthermore, the ICR (like Answers in Genesis and most other young-earth creationists) admits -- indeed insists -- that one species can change into another."
Here is the URL to that section:
http://theshipwreckoftime.blogspot.com/2010/11/john-d-morris-reads-fossil-record.html
Since I do not agree with this statement at all (a.k.a, Although possible, I have never heard a creationist make such a statement), I decided to look at his reference.
The reference is this: "http://creation.com/mammoth-riddle-of-the-ice-age" and if I look at the section "Created Kinds" it clearly describes variation within a kind, not one kind changing into another.
It also states this: "But the kind may be broader than a modern-day species. Because the different modern varieties may have different fractions of the original gene pool, the offspring from crossing different varieties (hybrids) may be sterile, or not survive. Thus each created kind may have been the ancestor of several present-day species."
So I just want to clarify that one "kind does not change into another kind". If similar species are contained within a kind, then it's obvious that it could change, depending on what your definition of species is.
If your definition of "species" is the same as kind, then species can not inter-breed or change from one species to another.
If your definition of species is narrower, then it could, as long as the collection of species falls within the same kind.
Simple math :-)
Also, since I am replying, I might as well add my opinion about global warning.
It is inevitable that the human footprint on this planet will increase, even if fusion was suddenly successful, and we all could have free energy without any by products. The mere presence of any life, in theory, will have an effect, but currently it has a negligible in the usual wheather patterns. (my opinion)
I "think", and with some more research and statistic collection this could be verified, that at this stage, human presence and interactions, can be considered negligible in the greater natural variation of wheather behavior.
I think most (50%+) people would agree that this does not mean we should not care about nature, however, there are more important things to worry about, than keeping comfortable wheather around for future generations.
How about preserving life itself, and caring for your fellow human being first, then worry about luxury of comfortable temperature for us and animals.
I also "think" that in the future, that it may be possible that humans could on average have a greater affect on the climate than the natural day to day occurances, but then again, one mount Saint Helens, Tsunami, Earthquake, ... and the gradual affects by our presence are negated in a few hours, as recent events have shown.
God bless, whether you believe He exist or not, ;-)
Steven J,
You said, “There are multiple sides to nearly any issue. There are multiple sides to the question of whether the Earth orbits the sun (see, e.g. the writings of Gerardus Bouw), but that does not mean that all sides are of equal merit. And given the paucity of time in schools, the necessity of merely sampling the evidence available on many questions (do you think history classes have the time available to teach allthe evidence for, say, the Holocaust?), giving "both sides" will in many cases falsely imply some equality in the amount and quality of evidence for each side.”
Well, I don't think that a third of the educators have been confronted by students or parents denying the Holocaust. I'm not saying equal time should be given to every single view on every single issue but there is a sizable percentage of people who have doubts about (or deny) global warming or that it's caused by people. Thus it is called a “controversy.” Why is Scott's group so bothered by this?
You said, “You statement that, if the Earth is 4.55 billion years old, a century or two is not statistically significant, seems to rest on some assumption you are not making explicit.”
I thought I was very explicit.
You said, “If you mean, we cannot on the basis of a couple of centuries worth of data predict the climate a million years from now, I suspect you are right.”
I'm not necessarily even talking about the future. I'm saying there isn't enough data to even determine if a warming trend has occurred or is occurring. Like I said, it's less than a blip. It would be like saying that since the temp in my backyard at 1PM on January 28, 2012 was higher than January 28, 2011 then the earth has warmed.
But we have to make it through the next century, or the next millennium, before we worry about a million years from now.”
But even if we have identified a trend, by your own admission, the earth has warmed and cooled in the past. The trend – if any – may be a natural cycle. Of course we have to get through the next century. It might be a waste of time and money to stop the trend and so we should start preparing for a warmer earth instead.
You said, “I do not know the source of Clinton's statements, but some hint of past climate conditions can be found in, e.g. comparisons of tree rings over the centuries: broader rings imply hotter summers. And the Europeans, at least, have kept some sort of records for longer than that.”
Do you really think we can identify a difference in one or two degrees via trees rings or ice cores? As I've already said, a possible warming trend might simply be more accurate measurements.
You said, “The question of an "ideal temperature" rather misses the point: there are different ideal climates for different species, and an increase in average global temperature will alter all sorts of local environments. Some organisms will try to migrate; some will become extinct, locally or even globally. The overall effects could be very inconvenient to us.”
Both warmer and cooler will effect some species and the earth seems to do both naturally. Do you think we should attempt to hold the world's temp in stasis? Would such a thing be even possible?
I'm going to snip some of your comment. It's all very interesting but you don't seem to have addressed the point of my post. Why are educators, Eugenie Scott, and the NSCE so concerned about battling doubters of global warming in the same way they battle creationists? Why do they rush to the aid of educators who are “threatened” by school boards asking them to “teach the controversy”? There are many questions surrounding climate change – why has the scientific (liberal) establishment already chosen a side and made it their mission to bring everyone else around to their way of thinking?
God bless!!
RKBentley
Maximillion,
Thank you for visiting my blog. Comments are always welcome and your English is much better than my Afrikaans.
It's a little off subject but you bring up a good point. There is a difference between the terms “kind” and “species.” I talked a little about this is my post about the black-tip shark. There can be a lot of variation within a kind but you are correct that one kind cannot change into another.
I also appreciate your points about climate change. One thing I had not discussed was the Curse and its effect on the planet. Earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis, plagues, hurricanes, tornadoes, famines, etc are symptoms of the Curse. We cannot possibly hope to quell these disasters. Why, then, do we think we could somehow cool the earth (assuming it's warming)?
Please continue to visit and feel free to comment.
God bless!!
RKBentley
Post a Comment