No, I don’t dismiss evolutionary biology. I think it would be a fuller description of biological reality if it incorporated teleological notions, but I don’t want to throw it all away.
I would guess that you are right, Ashwin, but it would be nice if we had some hard figures on this.
You do dismiss it. You dismiss it precisely by withholding assent. You also dismiss it actively with claims like these.
It is the models, not the raw data, on which all the alarmism is based. Those who admit that the temperature has hardly risen in recent years still maintain that we are in a global temperature crisis, not because of what the thermometers say but because of what their models predict.
I asked you to present evidence for these claims. You ignored the question. Where is the evidence for your claims?
You also dismiss it actively with claims like these.
And nothing I have read convinces me that the experts have a really firm handle on causality. They tend to explain any and all discrepancies between real temperature data and their predictions by a series of complex just-so stories about El Nino, etc., i.e., by appealing to things they never talked about when they made their original predictions. There is too much ad hoc patchwork, after the fact – always a sign of an immature science that hasn’t yet got a firm grasp on the causes.
I asked you to present evidence for these claims. You ignored the question. Where is the evidence for your claims?
You claim to not know enough to draw a conclusion about the issue, yet you claim to know enough to dismiss the overwhelming consensus of relevant science, a consensus significant not merely because of numbers, but because of the manner in which this consensus has been formed; through repeated observation, hypotheses, experimentation, accurate predictions, and the repeated validation of hypotheses, and their persistent resistance to falsification.
You don’t want to discuss the issue with me because I’m more informed about it than you are, and I can present the facts which contradict your claims. As T_aquaticus has pointed out, the underlying mechanism is really simple to understand. Even in high school science we were taught about global warming, how it occurs, and how humans are contributing. So the irony is that in high school I was literally taught all the science I need to understand how it occurs and how humans are contributing. Your appeals to credentialism are irrelevant.
Great! Then why aren’t you examining the results? Why aren’t you explaining it to us all here? Why aren’t you submitting papers for peer review? I suspect it’s because you know you can’t support your claims with actual facts (and your bragging about “straospheric grades” belongs in the same basket as all your other unsubstantiated self-serving claims about your “academic” history).
No. I’ve pointed to repeated observation, hypotheses, experimentation, accurate predictions, and the repeated validation of hypotheses, and their persistent resistance to falsification. This is all verifiable.
I don’t need to. I read really accessible explanations of them on sites like this, and I can check for myself whether the predictions have been correct.
As always, you are applying two different standards of evidence. You appeal to credentialism and claim that people outside these fields can’t be confident that the overwhelming scientific consensus on AGW is true, yet you tell us that you arrived at your conclusion about the hazards of smoking by simply looking at a couple of pictures (!), despite lacking the necessary knowledge and training to understand and assess all of the complex biological data and issues involved.
Then you turn around and make another appeal to credentialism and authority right here.
And you say this.
But you do take a side. It’s the same with your anti-evolution campaign. You try to depict yourself as a disinterested bystander, because it reduces your exposure to criticism, but you can’t conceal the fact that you reject the standard evolutionary model. If you at least accepted evolution and believed it was used by God, you would be an EC, but you don’t even do that. All you do is criticize evolution and try to cast doubt on the scientific theory.
No. There’s one common thread with regard to all the contrarians you tout; you agree with their conclusions because they support your own pre-conceived ideas. It’s a classic case of confirmation bias. You take them seriously if they say things you want to hear.
1 Like
The science of AGW is supported by over 100 years of research.
Denial of AGW correlates strongly with the same kind of fundamentalist Christianity which accompanies rejection of evolution. It is no surprise that we see that same correlation here on Peaceful Science.
2 Likes
Citation?
For what? The fact that denial of AGW correlates strongly with the same kind of fundamentalist Christianity which accompanies rejection of evolution?
For that figure.
The source is cited right there in the image, bottom left; “Data from Pew Religious Landscape Survey (2007)”.
1 Like
The author of the graph is also cited in the image, bottom left; Josh Rosenau.
There was a report in 2009 with figures…
http://go.redirectingat.com/?id=100098X1555750&xs=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fscienceandpublicpolicy.org%2Fimages%2Fstories%2Fpapers%2Foriginals%2Fclimate_money.pdf&sref=rss
Irrespective of whether the science is true or not. If there was no “crisis”, many climate scientists wouldn’t have grants.
US research expenditure increased from a few hundred million in 1989 to more than 2 billion in 2009…
1 Like
There’s no point in responding to your lengthy and repetitive diatribe on global warming. The kindergarten science you were taught in high school takes into consideration nowhere near the number of factors needed to model the fiendishly complicated climatic system. You simply don’t have the mathematical skills and knowledge of the relevant physical sciences necessary to evaluate the technical arguments, so there is no reason anyone should pay attention to your amateur judgments.
In the end, your argument is an argument from authority – I should go along with the majority of experts. It’s of course instructive in this regard that you don’t go along with the majority of experts in the history of the Christian tradition on a number of questions of theology. But that’s a side point, since I do not recognize arguments from authority.
But they haven’t always been correct. Most AGW proponents freely admit that they did not predict the extended “hiatus” (slowdown). If you haven’t seen these admissions, then your claim to have read up on this topic is shown to be false. (I linked to one such admission the other night, though I found several more with about 15 minutes of work on the web, so I can’t say much for your research skills if you haven’t found them yourself.) And how did they explain their failure to predict an extended slowdown? They came up with explanations for the slowdown after the fact. For example, some of them muttered stuff about possible El Nino effects. But they knew El Nino effects existed long ago, and if they were relevant to predicting the temperature, they should have factored them into their models. So either they didn’t know how to do that (because their models were already complex enough, and tossing in El Nino effects wouldn’t have been mathematically tractable), or they believed that the effects would be negligible, and were wrong, which would show that they don’t have a full grasp on all the factors involved in global warming and how to weight them. Either way, such desperate expedients of self-justification indicate an imperfect grasp of the relevant causality.
All your current arguments, in principle if not in the examples, are recycled from your arguments on BioLogos. Anyone who wants to can read all the same arguments advanced by you and others (not one of whom had a degree in climatology or any natural science) on the BioLogos site.
As I’ve said many times, both here and on BioLogos, I have no problem with the idea that God created through evolutionary means. The particular theological formulations of that idea, as set forth by most of the people at BioLogos, most of the people in the British analogue of BioLogos, and most of the people in the ASA, I disagree with, and therefore I don’t like using the label EC or TE. If TE meant what it originally meant, i.e., back in the days of Asa Gray, I’d call myself a TE now. But modern TE/EC far too often throws in unnecessary theological views that are either heretical or of dubious orthodoxy, and so I distance myself from most of the TE/EC community. You can continue to misrepresent my views if you like (though repeated misrepresentation of someone’s views in the face of repeated corrections seems to me more like lying than mere misrepresentation). I don’t see the point in responding to such falsehoods, and I don’t think it’s honest Christian dialogical behavior to keep telling your opponent that he believes or disbelieves X when he bluntly denies the charge.
It’s not a diatribe, it’s simply the facts.
This is nonsense for several reasons. Firstly because the climate change science I was taught at high school wasn’t “kindergarten”; it’s the same science which current climatologists rely on when tracking climate change today. Secondly because I didn’t claim to have been taught sufficient science to do the scientific research myself. Thirdly because I don’t need to do the scientific research myself in order to draw an accurate, scientifically informed conclusion about what the science communicated by actual professionals (who did do the research), actually says.
You did exactly the same, when you made a conclusion on the correlation of smoking and lung cancer, by looking at a couple of pictures (!). Despite your lack of knowledge and training in all the relevant fields, you felt confident that looking at a couple of pictures (!), was sufficient for you to draw a reliable conclusion on the topic.
So what? They have been highly correct, sufficiently frequently, for us to be certain about their overall conclusion; AGW is real. I note you’re still not addressing any of the science. You’re certainly not addressing any of the facts in the links I provided.
Wow, you don’t know much about this at all, do you? Firstly you throw out a bunch of completely unsubstantiated claims. It looks like you’re just making things up, but you could prove me wrong by providing evidence with reliable citations.
Secondly you’re clearly unaware that the global warming projection models for this period were accurate. Why? Because they take into account multidecadal variability (MDV). So the overall warming during this period matched the projection models. What the scientists actually wanted to figure out was why this particular MDV took place.
They weren’t saying “Oh dear, our models are wrong, the earth started cooling despite the fact that our models said it would warm”. They were saying “Our models were correct, and the earth’s warming trend followed the projection, so let’s look at what caused this particular MDV”. They started looking at the El Niño–Southern Oscillation precisely because they know it is capable of causing MDV. And behold, they found it was indeed a contributing factor, just as they predicted.
Thirdly, you’re clearly unaware that the actual hiatus was insignificantly small. It was misreported as larger than it was, due to missing data when the original calculation was made. When the relevant data was added and the calculations repeated, the hiatus virtually disappeared (see also here). This was known nearly four years ago, so the fact that you were completely unaware of it shows just how little you know about this subject.
These are weasel words. Saying you “have no problem with the idea” doesn’t mean you actually believe it, and saying “evolutionary means” avoids indicating whether or not you accept the modern evolutionary synthesis.
But if you really do believe it, then go out and preach the good word. Stop repeating anti-evolution talking points from ID and other sources. Stop trying to argue against the modern evolutionary synthesis. Tell other Christians they should accept that evolution is real, and universal common descent is a fact. Let’s see if you do this.
As Christy [edit] told you bluntly, the fact that you and other cdesignproponentists say one thing and do another, is precisely the reason why you look hypocritical. That’s not anyone else’s fault.
Who’s Cindy? Did I miss a reply somewhere?
As for the rest, your attempt to represent your interpretation of the facts as the only possible interpretation of the facts isn’t worthy of comment. Your interpretation is wildly selective, ignoring all kinds of differing data sets and interpretations from people who don’t agree with you. Confirmation bias runs wild. The interpretations and data sets that support your conclusion are valid ones; the other are invalid. That’s why there is no point in my citing articles, graphs, etc. that disagree with you. I know, based on your past behavior in disputes on many different subjects, that you will find some way of making them “not count.” I have never seen you yield even a thousandth of a inch in argument with anyone, so there would never be any discussion or give and take. Based on years of debating with you on all kinds of matters, I know that every piece of “evidence” I gave would be rejected. (And I’m not the only one who has noticed this; people who have debated with you in other venues have reported the same inflexible behavior. For you, it seems all disagreement is combat, and there has to be a triumphant winner and an abject loser. There is no meeting in the middle.)
You take my statement about the lungs out of context. I never represented that as a scientifically rigorous way of determining things. And I didn’t mean just “a couple of” (i.e., two) pictures. I was speaking of a regular pattern in numerous pictures. And there’s nothing unreasonable about saying, “I don’t have the scientific expertise to say whether or not A who says the black gunk is harmless is right, or B who says the black gunk is dangerous is right; but being unsure, I’d prefer not have that black gunk in my lungs.” The difference between me and you on this point is that I would make that decision for myself, and not go around browbeating other people if they didn’t make the same decision for themselves, telling them how irrational or unscientific they were. I can tolerate a world in which there isn’t uniformity of thought and opinion, but apparently you can’t.
[quote=“Jonathan_Burke, post:112, topic:5704”]
Tell other Christians they should accept that evolution is real, and universal common descent is a fact.[/quote]
They shouldn’t accept either of those things merely on authority. But if they do accept those things, I don’t say that they are incompatible with Christian faith. It is only certain formulations of those things that can potentially pose a problem.
You have never known me to be shy of saying bluntly when I think something is just plain false. If I thought common descent or evolution were just plain false, I would say so. I don’t fear the low opinion of you or anyone on any blog site, so I wouldn’t hesitate. So obviously I don’t think those things are just plain false. But you want me to say is that those things are true with Euclidean certainty – and they aren’t. They are reasonable inferences. And they don’t automatically clash with Christian truth. I’ve said that over and over again. But that’s not enough for you. You want a pious confession of evolutionary orthodoxy. I have no obligation to meet your demands for assent to your truths, your certainties. Any more than you felt the obligation to meet demands of the Christadelphian Church for its certainties regarding evolution.
Christy.
Evidence please. Remember you still haven’t provided evidence for your original claims. Meanwhile I’ve been supporting what I write with links to actual evidence, written by informed commentators.
This is your standard tactic of avoiding the issue. It is not me you are disagreeing with. As several people who actually have scientific training keep telling you, it’s the overwhelming scientific consensus, a consensus significant not merely for its scale but because of the way this consensus has been reached and validated scientifically. You keep trying to represent this as a disagreement between you and I, but it is no such thing. It is a disagreement between you and the overwhelming consensus of professionals in a specific scientific field.
I didn’t say you represented it as a scientifically rigorous way of determining things. This is another one of your derailing tactics; change the subject.
I haven’t told you that you’re being irrational or unscientific. I’ve challenged you to present evidence for your claims about AGW science. I’ve also repeatedly identified your errors on the subject. Given the significance of the issue, it’s socially responsible to do so. We don’t need ignorance being spread on a subject this important, just like we don’t need ignorance spread about the dangers of smoking.
What nonsense. I can certainly tolerate a world in which there isn’t uniformity of thought and opinion. This doesn’t mean I shouldn’t correct obviously wildly inaccurate and ignorant public statements on matters of global significance. Again you’re trying to change the subject, and as you’ve done before you’re trying to depict yourself as a sensible person taking an entirely reasonable view and being beleaguered for it, instead of what you actually are (a contrarian objecting to well established science because the facts contradict your personal views).
I agree.
On the contrary, I have repeatedly seen you avoid saying bluntly when you think something is just plain false, even though it’s totally clear that it’s just plain false. Christy pointed this out. You avoid such direct statements because you know you’ll be called out on them and challenged to support your claims with facts. It’s a strategy cdeisgnproponentists use to try and avoid the burden of proof. You try to give the impression that you’re not really opposing evolution, when all you ever do is oppose it.
No, I want you to say what you mean. If you really believe that you can’t say the modern evolutionary synthesis is wrong, you should stop opposing it with arguments which imply (or require), that it is wrong. Stop the doublespeak. Simnple.
No, I want intellectual honesty. If you accept the modern evolutionary synthesis, say so and stop opposing it.
I agree.
There is no such thing as “the Christadelphian Church”. It’s a motley collection of independent congregations, which is why even though most of them don’t accept evolution, many others do.
Exactly the point. Anyone I cited, you would deny to be an informed commentator. Judith Curry is an informed commentator, by any objective measure (indeed, she used to argue vigorously for your position, and I never heard you complaining about how uninformed she was then), but I have no doubt you would discount anything she said that differed from your own conclusions. The guy who pointed out major problems with the “hockey stick” graph is an informed commentator (as a top mathematical modeler I know informs me), but you would doubtless deny that. So there is no point in our trading references and arguments from the experts. It will never lead to any modification in your position. You have already decided that anyone who doesn’t go along with the majority is a bad scientist and need not be listened to.
No, it’s a disagreement between one group of experts and another group of experts, a disagreement which neither you nor I have advanced enough scientific training to adjudicate.
You’ve identified no errors; you’ve merely cited contrary opinions.
Which is why a Classics major shouldn’t be pontificating on it. Leave the arguments to those trained in the field.
AGW doesn’t contradict my personal view, because I don’t have a personal view. I said I think the jury is still out. You have the civil right to disagree with me that the jury is still out; you don’t have the moral or Christian right to say I have an anti-AGW personal view that I’m hiding, and that I should 'fess up. It’s presumptuous, insulting, uncharitable, and bullying. But such considerations have never altered your style of interacting with people before, so I don’t suppose they will do so now.
I don’t write intellectual blank checks. The term is too amorphous in meaning. I could ask ten different modern evolutionary theorists and get ten pronouncedly different answers regarding evolutionary mechanisms and their relative weighting. I’m not agreeing to endorse everything that any modern evolutionary theorist might say. I’ve already told you that I find common descent a reasonable inference. I would agree that mutations play some role in evolution and that selection plays some role in evolution. But I might give less weight to either or both of those than to organismal engineering of the genome or physics-based tendencies toward certain biological forms, or whatever else. I also can’t rule out the possibility of direct divine tinkering. I don’t insist on it, but I can’t rule it out. I reserve the right to change the mixture of mechanisms I endorse at any time it seems reasonable to me to do so. So I won’t sign onto a term that may commit me to all kinds of things that you insist on (but haven’t yet specified), but may restrict my intellectual judgment now or in the future. Again, you are bullying, as is your wont.
Nonsense. Judith Curry is an informed commentator.
He is an informed commentator. Wow, two strikes already.
No, my position is that anyone who doesn’t agree with the consensus needs to demonstrate, at minimum, a body of evidence supporting their case which is at least equivalent to that on which the consensus is based. Remember, the consensus has been formed through repeated observation, hypotheses, experimentation, accurate predictions, and the repeated validation of hypotheses, and their persistent resistance to falsification. Does Curry have all that? Do you even know?
No, it’s a disagreement between the overwhelming majority of experts, and a tiny number of outliers. The overwhelming majority of experts have on their side a case which has been established through repeated observation, hypotheses, experimentation, accurate predictions, and the repeated validation of hypotheses, and their persistent resistance to falsification. The tiny number of outliers on the other side, do not have this. You don’t need scientific training to see who has the evidence and the accurate predictions, just like you don’t need scientific training to know what happens to lungs exposed to cigarette smoke.
Evidence please. I corrected you over the “hiatus”, I corrected your claim that the models aren’t reliable, and corrected your hastily thrown together word salad about how the scientists identified and responded to the “hiatus” (you didn’t even know half of the facts), which you called “desperate expedients of self-justification” (!).
Of course you have a personal view. Your personal view is that the scientists have not made their case. You haven’t based this on any evidence (because you don’t have any), or personal scientific training or skills (because you don’t have any), but on what you feel.
What nonsense. The simple truth is that you steadfastly and dogmatically refuse to accept that the modern evolutionary synthesis is true. You’re scared of being called out on it and having to support your claims with evidence, so you hide behind weasel words like “I’m not agreeing to endorse everything”, and “I find common descent a reasonable inference”, and “I would agree that mutations play some role in evolution”, and “selection plays some role in evolution”. You’re a cdesignproponentist to the core. And we know what that is, it’s synonymous with “creationist”.
1 Like
My support is based on my understanding of the physics behind the greenhouse effect.
You assume that scientists who reach a consensus aren’t thinking for themselves. I think that is silly.
2 Likes
Do you think a Flat Earth conference casts doubt on the roundness of the Earth? Do you really think all opinions are equal?
Then the jury is still out on the roundness of the Earth because there are flat earthers.
3 Likes
I wonder if Eddie thinks “the jury is still out” over vaccination, because hey look at Andrew Wakefield and his buddies, they think vaccines are ineffective and just cause autism.
1 Like
There are doctors who think HIV is not the cause of AIDS, so perhaps @Eddie isn’t afraid of contracting the virus since there is still debate.
2 Likes