TRAILER: Not Evil Just Wrong — new film challenging man-induced global warming

_{William Dembski

October 6, 2009

Global Warming}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Comments

Monastyrski: I have the strong impression that ID proponents are more likely to be climate change deniers than other folks. Assuming this is true, does anyone know why?
It's likely due to the I.D. proponents love and respect for science and their support for integrity and honesty in all of science, not just biology. On the other hand, the Darwinists and Global Warming alarmists are seemingly motivated by little more than their own personal agendas (world view preference, finances, etc.).ShawnBoy_{October 6, 2009
October
10
Oct
6
06
2009
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT}

Gil,
The computer models on which all the original global warming hysteria was based predicted that CO2 was the definitive driving force behind a warming trend, and that this trend would continue and accelerate as CO2 levels rise. However, there has been no global warming for the last decade; there has been cooling. This means that the computer models and the underlying hypothesis have been empirically falsified. That’s how science works. Behe shows in The Edge of Evolution what random errors filtered by natural selection can do in the real world. The hypothesis that this process can account for everything observed in living systems has been empirically falsified. That’s how science works.
At the heart of it all, a philosophical predisposition takes hold of the elite administrative sects of society which then disseminates to the public square. This philosophical predisposition takes precedence over facts and evidence as the cost of losing social control is tremendous- and this, unfortunately, is also how science works. However true hope will always remain in the minds and mentalities of those who take an objective stance in critical thought and logic therefore arriving at their philosophical conclusion not due to predispositions, but due to an unfettered reason and individual conviction.PaulN_{October 6, 2009
October
10
Oct
6
06
2009
08:34 AM
8
08
34
AM
PDT}

"A lot of environmental activists still have not come to accept that the humans are part of the environment." So true and it points out something important. If you point to humans and say that we are the ones who did this, that it was a mistake and we should take responsibility for it, you are drawing a line between humans and the rest of life. I have to ask, what's so special about humans? Why are we the only species that should take responsibility and reduce our carbon footprint?tragic mishap_{October 6, 2009
October
10
Oct
6
06
2009
08:32 AM
8
08
32
AM
PDT}

No Gil, there has not been cooling for the last decade. link I have the strong impression that ID proponents are more likely to be climate change deniers than other folks. Assuming this is true, does anyone know why?Monastyrski_{October 6, 2009
October
10
Oct
6
06
2009
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PDT}

There are problems for both sides from the fossil evidence. Supporters of climate change need to ask why human emmissions aren't part of natural changes in light of the fossil evidence of levels around 2000ppm. Or why should we care about global warming in light of what nature does? Sceptics, especially creationist sceptics, need to ask why global warming isn't a problem for human beings in light of the fossil evidence that suggest global temperatures 8 deg C warmer than today. Incidentally creationist models that explain the geological column in terms of a global flood, and ice age, can help explain why there might have been a markedly different structure to the atmosphere pre-flood. Not that there is agreement over how that works out scientifically, but it offers scope for research. Hockey stick assumptions are incidentally an invention for political reasons. I believe that higher CO2 emmissions may change the climate today, but it is much less than political scare mongering would imply.Andrew Sibley_{October 6, 2009
October
10
Oct
6
06
2009
08:06 AM
8
08
06
AM
PDT}

There is a fallacy at the heart of natural science that often appears in natural history programmes. I have discussed this in my book Restoring the Ethics of Creation. On the one hand mankind is an evolved animal through natural selection and survival of the fittest, which implies we have no more responsibilty towards nature than a bacterium or ape; on the other hand it is wicked what mankind is doing to the environment because we are not just evolved apes. It does seem though that the science of global warming is being hyped for political reasons. The fossil record indicates the possibility of natural climate change with the fossil layers indicating CO2 levels of 2000 ppm and global temperatures 8 deg C warmer than today's levels - so mankind's small contribution is well within natural variation. The irony is that science uses millions of years of change only when it supports evolution, not when it can be used to consider climate change when supporters only use data of 1,000s or 100,000s of years. Today the evidence would suggest that there are various feedback mechanisms which are moderating the climatic effect of higher CO2 levels. What also needs to be considered is rainfall, and wind strength and other natural chemicals such as SO2 DMS, etc. It is a hugely complex area of study, but politicians are using it for their own ends. Why is that? Is it for taxation, social control or promotion of a religion of nature? I'll leave others to consider which one.Andrew Sibley_{October 6, 2009
October
10
Oct
6
06
2009
07:54 AM
7
07
54
AM
PDT}

The computer models on which all the original global warming hysteria was based predicted that CO2 was the definitive driving force behind a warming trend, and that this trend would continue and accelerate as CO2 levels rise. However, there has been no global warming for the last decade; there has been cooling. This means that the computer models and the underlying hypothesis have been empirically falsified. That's how science works. Behe shows in The Edge of Evolution what random errors filtered by natural selection can do in the real world. The hypothesis that this process can account for everything observed in living systems has been empirically falsified. That's how science works.GilDodgen_{October 6, 2009
October
10
Oct
6
06
2009
07:41 AM
7
07
41
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply