0
   

Global Warming: Junk Mathematics

 
 
Reply Fri 15 Oct, 2004 07:18 am
You could make an argument for posting this one as a science topic or a political topic either way, to me it's politics.

http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/04/10/wo_muller101504.asp

Turns out the entire mathematical basis of "global warming" has just been blown out of the water.

Leftists in particular like to use environmental issues as a way to avoid and/or eliminate democratic practices, and will be less than thrilled over this one.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 12,050 • Replies: 332
No top replies

 
Fedral
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Oct, 2004 08:51 am
The problem is gungasnake,
The people who believe in 'global warming' worship at the altar of that belief like the fanatics that they are.

Any attempt to point out the no-existence of their 'God' merely causes them to either lash out with "You are just corporate shills believing everything that the (insert industry name here) tells you" or they merely ignore it when you show them the hollow plaster facade that is their 'God'.

These are the same type of people who refuse to believe that the Earth is round no matter how many times you show them sattilite views of the Earth.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Oct, 2004 08:53 am
The problem is, Fedral and gungasnake, that there is more to environmental concern than the theory of global warming.

Some people feel a religious obligation to be faithful caretakers of the earth.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Oct, 2004 11:33 am
FreeDuck wrote:


Some people feel a religious obligation to be faithful caretakers of the earth.


Thank God for separation of church and state...
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Oct, 2004 11:45 am
Yeah, because otherwise we'd be taking care of the earth!
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Oct, 2004 11:53 am
Fedral wrote:
The problem is gungasnake,
The people who believe in 'global warming' worship at the altar of that belief like the fanatics that they are.


Well, the US-American right is known to think, everyone besides them is fanatic.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Oct, 2004 12:03 pm
FreeDuck wrote:
Yeah, because otherwise we'd be taking care of the earth!


As Limbaugh has correctly noted, the sum total of pollution ever created by humans is less than one medium-sized volcano.

My own view is that if WW-II didn't cause the great ecological catastrophe, it's never gonna happen.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Oct, 2004 12:39 pm
Dear Gunga,


You should take the time to read the articles you post before you assume that they support your politically-biased view of science.


If you had taken the time to read the article you would have noticed that the author made no claim that "the hockey stick" thesis was, as you put it, junk mathematics. This article does not claim "the entire mathematical basis for global warming has been blown out of the water". Quite the contrary.

This interesting article makes a point that is valid. Scientists need to be careful to get all of the the data exactly right and Mann made some mistakes. But that is science.

Scientists, who are educated and have peer review (which is the point of this article) have the best chance of understanding climate change. I know that God told you that global warming isn't true, but on issues like these I tend to trust the scientists more than I trust preachers and politicians.

With a few exceptions, most people in the scientific community believe that global warming is a real significant threat. The author of the article you posted is not one of the excptions.

Quote:

[The new report] certainly does not negate the threat of a long-term global temperature increase. In fact, McIntyre and McKitrick are careful to point out that it is hard to draw conclusions from these data, even with their corrections. Did medieval global warming take place? Last month the consensus was that it did not; now the correct answer is that nobody really knows. Uncovering errors in the Mann analysis doesn't settle the debate; it just reopens it. We now know less about the history of climate, and its natural fluctuations over century-scale time frames, than we thought we knew.

If you are concerned about global warming (as I am) and think that human-created carbon dioxide may contribute (as I do), then you still should agree that we are much better off having broken the hockey stick.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Oct, 2004 12:49 pm
Quote:

These are the same type of people who refuse to believe that the Earth is round no matter how many times you show them sattilite views of the Earth.


This is richly ironic.

The scientists are the ones who held firm that the earth was round. This was opposed by religious folks who attacked science.

The scientists designed the sattilites[sic] that give Fedral the views he claims.

The scientists now widely accept global warming as a real phenomenon (again backed by satillite evidence). Interestingly it is again the religious who attack the science.

Fedral, can you see the irony here?
0 Replies
 
Acquiunk
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Oct, 2004 01:23 pm
Richard Muller's column (not scientific article) Global Warming Bombshell , is a specious bit of political ax grinding. The article he quotes, but does not offer a citation for makes no claim to disprove Mann's data or the results of his analysis. The article in question is: Corrections to the Mann et. al. (1998) Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemispheric Average Temperature Series Steven McIntyre Ross McKitrick Energy and Environment Vol 14, no 6 2003 http://www.multi-science.co.uk/mcintyre_02.pdf See Figure 8, page 766. Their data analysis matches Mann with the exception of the years 1400 - 1550 AD when the chart is the reverse giving their graph a bowl shape. Both Mann and McInyre/McKitrick have the "hockey stick" up tick in the 20th century. The difference is that McIntyre and Mckitrick have a similar up tick for 1400-1500 (15th century). Their argument is that current temperatures are just now approaching the mean of the high Middle Ages. This is well known. For a popular (not technical) discussion of the 14th and 15th century climate see The Little Ice Age How Climate Mate History 1300-1850 Brian Fagan Basic Books 2000. For an over view of this controversy see http://temperature-record-of-the-past-1000-years.wikiverse.org/ McIntyre and Mckitrick claim that no funding was received for their analysis of the Mann data. But in the past they have received funding support from the American Petroleum Institute as well as NASA and the US Air Force for work on this problem http://keskustelu.skepsis.fi/html/KeskusteluViesti.asp?ViestiID=151089
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Oct, 2004 01:24 pm
This at the very least casts one more very major doubt on the whole question of global warming.

Don't get me wrong, there HAVE been long term changes in average temperature on the planet even within the last 10K years, BUT THEY ARE NOT BROUGHT ABOUT BY HUMANS.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Oct, 2004 01:56 pm
Gunga,

Other than your clear political bias, what do you base this brash statement on?

The scientific community disagrees with you.

The vast majority of scientists will say that there is almost certainly an increase in global temperatures that has been brought about by humans.

You are clearly taking minor points of valid debate within the scientific community to bolster a false claim. You also clearly don't understand what you are talking about.

You are asking a scientific question. You really should listen to the scientists.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Oct, 2004 02:12 pm
Quote:
Pressure points

The climate is changing. But where will we see the devastating effects first? Ian Sample reports on Earth's 12 most fragile places

Thursday October 14, 2004
The Guardian

Cast an eye over the many forests' worth of scientific literature on global warming and it quickly becomes clear that working out what a temperature rise of a few degrees will mean for life anywhere on the planet is far from straightforward. Vast ice sheets may melt, sea levels will rise, and faced with a new climate, species must adapt, move or perish. Yet the precise details of how any of it will happen are, frankly, unknown.
Now it seems the future has become even more uncertain. Climate scientists say they have identified a dozen weak links around the world, regions where global warming could bring about the sudden, catastrophic collapse of vital ecosystems. The consequences will be felt far and wide.

An abrupt halt in one ocean current could devastate Antarctic fish stocks, while disruption to another could make temperatures in Britain and elsewhere plunge. When rains return to the Sahara, disease and crop damage from pests could soar. Meanwhile, a drier Amazon will trigger huge die-back of the forests, threatening many species with extinction. Losing the forests will itself exacerbate global warming.

Earlier this week, scientists reported that we may have less time to combat global warming than we realised. Measurements of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, taken from the Mauna Loa Observatory, 12,000ft up a mountain in Hawaii, suggest atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have risen sharply and inexplicably in the past two years, prompting fears of runaway global warming. Though it is too early to confirm that it is a definite upward trend, the results came as an unwelcome surprise to climatologists.

Over the span of the coming century, even the most extreme global warming scenario predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - an increase of 5.8C - seems gentle.

Surely civilisation will have enough time to protect itself against the consequences, while ecosystems could gradually adapt? Not so, say scientists studying the world's weakest links.

John Schellnhuber, research director at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research in Norwich, played a key role in identifying the dozen systems where global warming could produce sudden and dramatic environmental damage. He calls them the "tipping points", the achilles heels of the planet.

At a conference earlier this year, Schellnhuber and other scientists called for a concerted, global effort to investigate the earth's known tipping points and to search for new ones. Only then, he says, will we be able to identify where the consequences will be felt first.

"It'll take a global effort to understand these, and we have to make sure that none are activated through human actions," he says. Here, we present a list of the tipping points and what might happen if they are triggered.

Sahara desert


Occupying some 3.5m square miles of northern Africa, the Sahara desert is expected to shrink with global warming as more plentiful rain brings a flourish of vegetation to its southernmost reaches.

For those on the edge of the desert, the fertile land will undoubtedly be a boon, but the Sahara plays a broader role in the health of the planet. The dry dust that is whipped up from the desert by strong prevailing winds contains crucial nutrients that seed the Atlantic and may even help fertilise the Amazon.

As the Sahara turns from brown to green, the flux of nutrients into the ocean is expected to drop, restricting food available for plankton, the smallest of links in the marine food chain.

As the number of plankton falls, so does food for aquatic creatures further up the food chain.

That's not the only knock-on effect. Plankton lock up the greenhouse gas CO <->2 from the atmosphere, and so help counter global warming. With fewer plankton, the oceans will take less of the gas from the Earth's atmosphere.

Dust from the Sahara has other, more subtle influences. When blown out over the Atlantic, clouds of Saharan dust act to stabilise the atmosphere, suppressing the formation of hurricanes.

A greener Sahara could mean more frequent, or more severe hurricanes slamming into the Caribbean, parts of central and southern America and the south-eastern US.

Meanwhile, the now wetter Saharan regions of Sudan, Morocco and Algeria could become more prone to infestations of locusts, such as the swarms that have devastated crops in the region this year.

Amazon forest


The size of western Europe, the Amazon forest is one of the most biodiverse regions on Earth. Models suggest that with global warming will come a drop in Amazonian rainfall, leading to the gradual death of the forest and subsequent collapse of the myriad ecosystems it supports.

The extinction of species is only one consequence of a warmer planet. As the trees die off, they will fall and rot, releasing carbon dioxide. In the worst case scenario, the quantities of CO <->2 emitted could be of the same order of magnitude as from the 20th century's total fossil fuel output.

"It's the biggest biodiversity pool on Earth and if it were lost, it would be an incredible loss for our nature capital. This is not just a fantasy. There's clearly a vulnerability here," says Schellnhuber.

Ozone hole


Decades after many countries introduced a ban on CFCs, the danger of the ozone hole causing a nasty surprise remains very real.

"In a sense, this is the mother of all tipping points, and it's one that has been activated already," says Schellnhuber.

Scientists are now generally agreed that global warming may drastically amplify the power of ozone-destroying chemicals, which linger in the stratosphere for decades. At high altitude, ozone acts as a shield against the sun's damaging radiation. Global warming, while heating the lower atmosphere, can lead to cooling in the stratosphere where the ozone layer forms. Cooling this band of air has a complex knock-on effect, disrupting a chemical process that prevents ozone from breaking down. The result is a loss of ozone as the world warms up.

Though the ozone hole is often associated with Antarctica and Australia, ozone loss due to global warming could see a hole appear over parts of Europe.

"If it were to stretch beyond Antarctica, it would increase in an intolerable way, the risk of skin cancer and blindness," says Schellnhuber.

Greenland ice sheet


The Greenland ice sheet holds about 2.6 million cubic kilometres of fresh water, which is some 6% of the planet's supply. It is imperative that this water remains frozen. If global warming sees temperatures rise by more than about 3C, Greenland is likely to begin a slow thaw, steadily releasing all that water - currently resting on land - into the north Atlantic Ocean.

Climate models suggest that a more drastic temperature increase of some 8C could see the Greenland ice sheet disappear almost entirely, a thaw that would see the seven seas rise by seven metres. Such a dramatic rise in sea level would cause flooding that is bound to have a devastating impact on people living on unprotected shorelines around the globe.

And the drowned land won't reappear for some time. "If the Greenland ice sheet goes, it probably will not come back for the next 60,000 years," says Schellnhuber.

Tibetan plateau


Spanning one quarter of China's entire landmass lies the Tibetan plateau. Because the region is permanently under snow and ice, it behaves like a giant mirror, reflecting the sun's rays back into space.

The effect is to keep a lid on global warming, at least locally, as the darker soils are unable to bask in the sun's radiation and increase in temperature.

In a warmer world, the white of the Tibetan plateau will slowly turn to brown and grey as the snow retreats to reveal the ground beneath. As the ground warms, melting will accelerate. Tibet will become a much warmer place.

Salinity valves


In some parts of the world, local geography conspires to pinch the waters between adjacent seas into separate bodies of water. If one is saltier than the other, a flux of salt, nutrients and oxygen can be set up across the gap, producing what scientists refer to as a salinity valve.

Arguably the most significant salinity valve is the Strait of Gibraltar, acting as a pinch between the Mediterranean and the north Atlantic Ocean. The gradients across the valves give rise to unique ecosystems that are highly adapted to local conditions.

As global warming is expected to disrupt ocean currents, by warming the seas and diluting the surface waters that drive other water circulations, marine life around salinity valves could in turn face major disruption.

"Everything is in a balance now, all the ecosystems have adapted to a certain salinity," says Schellnhuber. If conditions around salinity valves change rapidly, those ecosystems might not be able to adapt quickly enough to survive.

"The Mediterranean is very fragile already. It could have an extremely negative effect for several decades," adds Schellnhuber.

North Atlantic current


The North Atlantic current is one of the strongest ocean currents in the world, of which the Gulf stream is the precursor.

It works like a conveyer belt. Surface water in the North Atlantic is first cooled by westerly winds from North America, making the water more dense and salty so it sinks to the ocean floor before moving towards the equator. Driven by winds and replacing the cold water moving south, warm water from the Gulf of Mexico moves upward into the Atlantic.

The effect of the current on climate is dramatic. It brings to Europe the equivalent of 100,000 large power stations' worth of free heating, propping up temperatures by in excess of 10C in some parts.

Global warming could change all that, though not very quickly. Computer models predict that as global warming increases, so will rainfall in the North Atlantic. Gradually, the heavier rains will dilute the sea water and make it less likely to sink, a process that could bring the whole conveyer to a gradual halt.

"It won't happen in a matter of weeks, like in the movie The Day After Tomorrow, but it could happen over a few decades," says Schellnhuber.

In the past 50,000 years, the current has stopped at least seven times. Collapse of the North Atlantic current would hit Iceland, Scotland and Norway most, where temperatures could drop 10C or more. If it happened soon, we would notice a difference. But in 100 years, when global temperatures may be a few degrees higher anyway, temperatures may simply revert back to today's levels. Total shutdown of the current would lead to a rapid regional sea level rise of around 1m along UK the coast as the ocean adjusts to the change.

El Niño

The disruption caused by El Niño is well known, from droughts in Asia and Australia to flooding in regions such as Ecuador and northern Peru. The Peruvians gave El Niño its name, derived from the Spanish for "the boy child". El Niño was originally used to describe a warm ocean current that arrived around Christmas time.

Nowadays, the term refers to a general warming of the central and Asian Pacific, which causes a major shift in weather pattern and in particular responds sensitively to changes at the western boundary of the Pacific. El Niños are already somewhat erratic, occurring every two to seven years, but some models suggest global warming could make El Niños not just more severe but more frequent.

The impact on agriculture and so food production could be serious. Indonesia, the Philippines, south-east Asia and Eastern Australia could face damaging droughts while the heavy rains and flooding cause problems for the northwestern regions of South America.

West Antarctic ice sheet


The giant West Antarctic ice sheet is not about to melt any time soon - the ice is up to a kilometre thick - but two years ago a vast chunk, the Larsen B ice shelf, broke off the eastern side of the Antarctic peninsula and fragmented into icebergs. In just 35 days, about 3,250 square kilometres of ice was lost; the size of the entire shelf is now roughly 40% the size at which it had previously stabilised.

Some predictions suggest that the rest of the sheet could feel the force of global warming quickly. Should the entire sheet melt, it is estimated the sea level rise around the world would top 6m. Once more, coastal regions would be under threat.

Methane clathrates


Deep within the Siberian permafrost and ocean floor sediments lie vast deposits of gas-filled ice called methane clathrates.

At Siberian temperatures, or under the weight of icy oceans, the clathrates are stable. But as global warming takes effect, the icy crystals that clutch the gas could rupture, releasing it into the oceans and atmosphere.

According to the US Geological Survey, some 10 to 11 trillion tonnes of carbon are locked up in clathrates in ocean floor deposits, the equivalent of 20 times the known reserves of natural gas. Some scientists believe sudden releases of methane from clathrates caused a severe environmental impact in the past.

If released into the atmosphere, methane from clathrates could exacerbate global warming. Some estimates suggest that since methane is such a strong greenhouse gas, a significant release could increase global warming by up to 25%. More likely, some scientists say, is that released methane poisons the oceans or oxidises and dissolves as carbon dioxide as it rises, which would still be toxic to some species.

The monsoon


During March and April, the Indian subcontinent begins to heat up, reaching some of the highest surface temperatures of the year by May. The hot land produces a sharp temperature gradient between the land and sea which causes an abruptreversal of the winds from seaward to landward.

As the winds strike the Himalayas and are deflected upwards, they create a low pressure system, forcing rainclouds to release their stores of water. While the monsoon season can cause incredible flood damage, local populations are largely adapted and to some extent reliant on the weather.

If global warming has the expected effect of heating India even more, the monsoon season could become far more severe. What happens will be influenced by the level of pollution in the region. Sulphur dioxide and even dust make rain droplets smaller and so diminish overall rainfall. These substances also increase the reflectivity of clouds, which prevents the ground from heating up so much.

Both of these factors would weaken the monsoon, causing havoc for Indian agriculture, with serious consequences for food production.

The Atlantic circumpolar current


Some scientists believe the Atlantic circumpolar current to be the most significant on the planet. It swirls some 140m cubic metres of water around Antarctica every second, mixing water from the Pacific, Atlantic and Indian oceans as it goes.

The current taps into another circulation that sees cold surface water sink while warmer water rises, bringing with it vital nutrients from dead plankton (left) and other marine life on the ocean floor.

Global warming is expected to produce more rainfall over the poles, which could slow the rise of nutrients for dispersal by the Atlantic circumpolar current.

"For marine life, any change in the currents is extremely important," says Schellnhuber.
Source
0 Replies
 
Joe Republican
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Oct, 2004 02:13 pm
This is more for the mathmatics and science part of A2K, but i will add in my 2cents.

Here is the paragraph of importance
Quote:
In PCA and similar techniques, each of the (in this case, typically 70) different data sets have their averages subtracted (so they have a mean of zero), and then are multiplied by a number to make their average variation around that mean to be equal to one; in technical jargon, we say that each data set is normalized to zero mean and unit variance.


This is saying that the data set should appear random in nature and should have a normal statistical distribution. This means the data will fall under a bell curve, simple as that.

Quote:

In standard PCA, each data set is normalized over its complete data period; for key climate data sets that Mann used to create his hockey stick graph, this was the interval 1400-1980. But the computer program Mann used did not do that. Instead, it forced each data set to have zero mean for the time period 1902-1980, and to match the historical records for this interval. This is the time when the historical temperature is well known, so this procedure does guarantee the most accurate temperature scale.


This method is ALWAYS done in ANY type of computer analysis which is non-linear in behavior. It's called correlation and you modify your inputs so they correlate with known experimental evidence.

Say for example you have an alloy of steel and you want to find out the strength under a specific load. You then conduct a sampling of specimens, normalize the distribution and you can say within a certain % if the failure will occur. You are in effect, correlating the data. In you FEA model, you then change the modulus to correlate to the exact distribution you created. The center of the bell curve corresponds to the average, and you use this figure for you analysis.

You can also back out what the "max failure load" would be, what % of parts will fail at the required loads, factors of safety and a myriad of other things. This is how both science experiments lead directly to analysis through correlation.

Quote:

But it completely screws up PCA. PCA is mostly concerned with the data sets that have high variance, and the Mann normalization procedure tends to give very high variance to any data set with a hockey stick shape. (Such data sets have zero mean only over the 1902-1980 period, not over the longer 1400-1980 period.)


This is probably why the article was never published in Nature. What PCA allows the user to do is to reduce a dataset and find any underlying factors as well as decrease the number of DOFs. This is done when you have a large dataset, such as global temperatures and it simplifies the problem.

Normalizing the dataset is the correct way to look at the problem. The author does not even refute it, instead he says
Quote:
the Mann normalization procedure tends to give very high variance to any data set with a hockey stick shape.


What he is saying is that his data is correct, but because the temperatures increased over the past 20 years, there will be a large variance. . . Well, if you know anything about statistics, the answer is duh Rolling Eyes

The author is not disputing that global temperatures are rising, he agrees with it. He is not refuting statistics, he agrees with it. He is not even refuting the premise, he is only saying that you will have a higher variance using Mann's method when you have a "hockey stick" graph.

Now, lets look at the graph and I will show you what he is talking about.

http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/03/12/muller2121703.jpg

The data in blue is proxy data and the data in read is actual data. If you look (not at his line, but the actual data points) you will notice there isn't a change from 1900-1980, the temperature occilates back and forth.

Now, look at the red data, this is the actual temperature data. It is increasing from 1980 on, and at an alarming rate. This, again, is actual data.

Now, when looking at the graph, you notice the hockey stick shape. This is because of the spike at the end, and the spike is real based on real data. What the author is arguing for is that the solid line, Manns prediction, has a higher variance over the last 20 years. This is true because the data increases, but it does not change the fact that the temperature has been rising since 1980.

Picture it this way, you have a dataset of 100 numbers, you then create a bell curve based on these numbers. You then start to reaquire data, but all of the data is skewed to one side (the high side). This will "throw off the curve" because the new data isn't where the data is expected to be. If you tried to normalize the dataset, you would get an increase in variance, it's basic statistics.

One more note, I work with two people he mentions in his "linked" article and they published a paper a year ago which talks about a warming trend in the 1400's. it was done through "proxie" information, something he says is not reliable in this study, but is reliable for thhe Soon/Baliunas study.

Do a google for the following paper.

Quote:
"Proxy Climatic and Environmental Changes of the Past 1,000 Years," by W. Soon and S. Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.


I have seen this used may times to refute global warming, yet the authors actually support the global warming theory. The just mention that we need more information.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Oct, 2004 02:37 pm
One other thing to note here: somewhere back around 6000 - 8000 years ago, we had a temperature maximum on the planet which is termed 'hypsothermal', which corresponds roughly to the classical golden age which Ovid, Hessiod, Plato, and all of those guys used to write about. In other words, according to physical evidence and all the writings we have available, it was a lot hotter than it is now and everybody loved it.

The ONLY thing which would make me feel less than sanguine about that thought is that it could easily be that there was less water on the Earth at that time, i.e. that the waters of the flood arrived from space somehow or other i.e. that we've basically got too much water floating around in our oceans right now, and that we're got to figure a way to get rid of some of it. As I see it, that sort of thing is what God gave us our minds for and I have no doubt that in 50 years we'll be able to do that.
0 Replies
 
Acquiunk
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Oct, 2004 02:42 pm
gungasnake wrote:
BUT THEY ARE NOT BROUGHT ABOUT BY HUMANS.


Amid all his ranting gaunga addresses a valid question. "Is the current rise in the earth's average temperature anthropogenic?" At the moment I tend to think not and think a more valid (and more difficult) question is "can human activity effect the highth and duration of the warming curve?" There is no doubt that it is getting warmer, and that the problems Walter outlined are real possibilities. Further it is generally agreed that the gunk we are spewing into the atmosphere is not doing us any good. I think it would be wise to consider Fagan's observation in his concluding chapter

"Even if the present warming is entirely natural in origin, greenhouse warming in the future could be accentuated by fossil fuels. We would be rash to ignore even theoretical scenarios for we and our descendents are navigating uncharted climatic waters". (page 217)
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Oct, 2004 02:46 pm
If there is a sentient creator (i.e. God) than this creator is the author of science, not only did this God create the phenomena that are so elegantly explained by the fruit of mathematical, logical inquiry, but He also gave us a mind that can use reason and logic to question and discover His rules that govern the creation.

You would think that people who believed in God would be much more positive about science, wouldn't you?

So, answer me this...

Why are the most religious people also the most stubbornly ignorant about science and blindly hostile to those who work to understand it?

It's hard to believe...
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Oct, 2004 03:45 pm
ebrown_p wrote:


You would think that people who believed in God would be much more positive about science, wouldn't you?

So, answer me this...

Why are the most religious people also the most stubbornly ignorant about science and blindly hostile to those who work to understand it?

It's hard to believe...


I'm not aware of anybody being hostile towards real science on religious grounds. Dead theories on the other hand, evolution, big-bang, Malthusian economics and so forth, to me at least, are not real science.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Oct, 2004 04:13 pm
Sorry to be the one to tell you this....

God considers evolution and big-bang to be very real science. He has told us this very clearly. You just haven't been listening...

After all, God created the Big Bang and designed evolution to bring us to where we are today...

It is one thing to argue against scientists, but I wouldn't want to be in your position arguing against the almighty creator of this incredible Universe.

----
BTW you still haven't explained your avatar, do I see people tied to a stake in there?
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Oct, 2004 06:02 pm
ebrown_p wrote:
Sorry to be the one to tell you this....

God considers evolution and big-bang to be very real science. He has told us this very clearly. You just haven't been listening...



I don't really want to get into any arguments over evolutionism, which I view as totally idiotic.

As to the big bang, a number of the very best physicists in the world, and this includes about a hundred people from places like the Max Planck Institute and our national labs at Lawrence Livermore and Los Alamos, recently sent a letter to the editors of Nature detailing the fact that serious scholars have no further use for big bang and that it is only being defended by second-raters. Nature refused to publish the letter which was then sent to New Scientist which did publish it.

Check it out:

http://www.cosmologystatement.org
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Global Warming: Junk Mathematics
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/22/2021 at 05:17:05