Global Warming as Mass Neurosis

_{July 1, 2008

Intelligent Design}

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

A great article in the WSJ about Global Warming. I really like this quote:

If even slight global cooling remains evidence of global warming, what isn’t evidence of global warming? What we have here is a nonfalsifiable hypothesis, logically indistinguishable from claims for the existence of God. This doesn’t mean God doesn’t exist, or that global warming isn’t happening. It does mean it isn’t science.”

When I saw this a corollary came to mind immediately:

Even if things practically impossible for chance & necessity to conjure up remain evidence of neo-Darwinian evolution, what isn’t evidence of neo-Darwinian evolution? What we have here a nonfalsifiable hypothesis, logically indistinguishable from claims for the existence of God. This doesn’t mean God doesn’t exist, or that neo-Darwinian evolution isn’t happening. It does mean it isn’t science.

Comments

Good point tribune7. I'll keep this in mind in any discussions I get into about "consensus." "I don’t earn enough money after taxes to even make this a fantasy." LOL. Maybe when reason takes over in this nation vouchers will become the norm and at least make such a thing a possibility. You'd still be paying taxes, but at least it'll be taxation with representation. As the rain pours on this July day, I can't help but think back to a question I've been begging to ask Gore if I ever met him face to face: In the area where I live, annual temperature deviations from the hottest day to the coldest night are as high as 100 degrees, yet nature doesn't seem to succumb to any damage from it. So if nature can adapt to a 100 degree change over an entire year (including night and day changes in that period), then how on earth will a 2/3rd's of a degree increase in temperature over the last 12 decades cause any damage whatsoever? But alas, "the debate is over" so no need to address such questions.F2XL_{July 4, 2008
July
07
Jul
4
04
2008
10:38 PM
10
10
38
PM
PDT}

In regards to global warming I would like to offer as an analogy an excellent philosophical insight by the greatest logician of all times Kurt Gödel who once said concerning the objectivity of mathematics that
“it is arbitrary to stop anywhere along the path of more and more idealizations. We move from intuitionistic to classical mathematics and then to set theory with decreasing certainty. The increasing degree of uncertainty begins at the region between classical mathematics and set theory. Only as mathematics is developed more and more, the overall certainty goes up. Yet, the relative degrees remain the same.”
So the point here is that as the computer models become more and more complex the degree of certainty will become less and less accurate. The global warming evidence via the computer models are at this point perhaps too complex to be wrong. That is they are not even wrong. The situation will only begin to improve when the system and it’s mathematical axioms become more and more accurately developed. So if you put a bunch of nonsense into a computer you can sure bet that your going to get a bunch of nonsense out. Nonsense, by the way, that is also incomplete and therefore mostly arbitrary to the actual problem under investigation. The nonsense of global warming however has one unique characteristic that most other nonsense does not- the nonsense of global warming is purposeful (I.e. useful). That makes those out there who are a part of the global warming hysteria movement “useful idiots.”Frost122585_{July 4, 2008
July
07
Jul
4
04
2008
07:09 PM
7
07
09
PM
PDT}

"Gil, there are plenty of Christian high schools and colleges available that will teach more consistent with your worldview. You should check them out. If nothing else, it will help your blood pressure." I don't earn enough money after taxes to even make this a fantasy.GilDodgen_{July 4, 2008
July
07
Jul
4
04
2008
06:22 PM
6
06
22
PM
PDT}

IrrDan : To use Crichton's wording :
Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period. In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of. ... Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.
Borne_{July 3, 2008
July
07
Jul
3
03
2008
10:10 AM
10
10
10
AM
PDT}

IrrDan --if this scientific consensus is worth nothing, then what about all the other fields where scientists agree? is it all rubbish or do I sense here a bit of a selective perception? You know there is a consensus that An Inconvenient Truth has a lot of inaccuracies. Anyway, ask yourself this, -- remembering that the Big Bang is about as established as anything in science -- suppose someone wrote a book saying "The Big Bang Never Happened?" Would he lose his job or get funding from NASA?tribune7_{July 3, 2008
July
07
Jul
3
03
2008
07:55 AM
7
07
55
AM
PDT}

It is a public high school at which there is a politically correct indoctrination program. My older daughter is undergoing the same indoctrination in college.
Gil, there are plenty of Christian high schools and colleges available that will teach more consistent with your worldview. You should check them out. If nothing else, it will help your blood pressure.soplo caseosa_{July 3, 2008
July
07
Jul
3
03
2008
04:46 AM
4
04
46
AM
PDT}

Why are all my comments deleted whenever they are a wee bit critical. I am a supporter of ID but I still think we should sharpen our critical discussion skills. that is why I think it is good to sometimes play the devils advocate.IrrDan_{July 3, 2008
July
07
Jul
3
03
2008
12:51 AM
12
12
51
AM
PDT}

if this scientific consensus is worth nothing, then what about all the other fields where scientists agree? is it all rubbish or do I sense here a bit of a selective perception?IrrDan_{July 2, 2008
July
07
Jul
2
02
2008
09:23 PM
9
09
23
PM
PDT}

Gil, Just curious, but why haven't you tried non-public?tribune7_{July 2, 2008
July
07
Jul
2
02
2008
08:43 PM
8
08
43
PM
PDT}

History class seems an interesting place for showing An Inconvenient Truth, so I’m curious what the climate is.
It is a public high school at which there is a politically correct indoctrination program. My older daughter is undergoing the same indoctrination in college. Dissent from orthodoxy is generally ridiculed, and the teachers and professors are almost universally leftist materialist secularists. Neither the English teacher nor the history teacher has the faintest notion of simple logical concepts like the difference between correlation and causation, but what can I do, besides teach my children? Fortunately, both my daughters are math whizzes and grasp these concepts easily. The good news is that my younger daughter got an A on the paper. Since they were small I've taken my children to church where they have learned that they are not the mindless products of an undirected material process that did not have them in mind, but the product of a God who had them in mind before time began and has a special purpose for their lives. I've also taken them to Biola University for a number of apologetics seminars, where they have learned that not all people who believe in God are IDiotic anti-intellectuals. As a former atheist who finally succumbed in 1994 to a call that was screaming at me from every quarter, all I can do is pray that I've sufficiently inoculated my children against the disease and poison to which they are being subjected in public education.GilDodgen_{July 2, 2008
July
07
Jul
2
02
2008
08:21 PM
8
08
21
PM
PDT}

Gil, tell us a bit more about the paper your daughter wrote. Specifically, I'm interested in the climate at the school. What was her take/conclusion? Was her teacher supportive of her analysis or derogatory? Public or private? History class seems an interesting place for showing An Inconvenient Truty, so I'm curious what the climate is.Eric Anderson_{July 2, 2008
July
07
Jul
2
02
2008
02:21 PM
2
02
21
PM
PDT}

conclusions? 1. consensus science reeks 2. scientists touting consensus are either frauds seeking fortune and glory or ignoramuses following the other sheep to slaughter 3. you can trust practically nothing in the current consensus science & politics atmosphere Like I've said before, there ought to be a public outcry against the prostitution of science to politics, personal agendas and personal world views.Borne_{July 2, 2008
July
07
Jul
2
02
2008
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT}

I was arguing about global warming with a friend of mine, and I finally received a prediction: The northern polar ice cap will be completely gone by 2013. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7139797.stm Nice article by Crichton, I read the whole thing. Highly recommended. We are lucky this prediction is for 5 years from now. Erhlich and Sagan were a bit smarter. Their predictions were for ten years in the future. This guy Maslowski might actually be remembered to have made this prediction when 2013 rolls around.tragicmishap_{July 2, 2008
July
07
Jul
2
02
2008
08:12 AM
8
08
12
AM
PDT}

Check out this book (The Deniers: The World Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud**And those who are too fearful to do so), by Lawrence Solomon: http://www.amazon.com/Deniers-Renowned-Scientists-Political-Persecution/dp/0980076315/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1215007892&sr=1-1 Note Solomon's blog essay about how Wikipedia entries on global warming are edited to promote only one side of the debate, just as are Wikipedia articles on ID. The exact same thing is happening to scientists who challenge global warming hysteria as is happening to ID advocates, never mind the credentials or the validity of the evidence and arguments. You can listen to Dennis Prager interview Solomon here: http://dennisprager.townhall.com/TalkRadio/Show.aspx?RadioShowID=3&ContentGuid=7c28fbb1-1718-403c-b28f-b59b20c9dab0 John Coleman, founder of the weather channel, wants to sue Al Gore for fraud: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,337710,00.html John commented in a Fox News video interview that none of the mainstream TV networks will give him any exposure. He also commented that the global warming thing is a kind of religion. I'm reading this book, given to me for Father's Day by my daughter: http://www.amazon.com/Climate-Confusion-Pandering-Politicians-Misguided/dp/1594032106/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1215009195&sr=1-1 She was shown An Inconvenient Truth in her high school history class, and was assigned to write a paper about global warming in her English class. I helped her write the paper. It was fun.GilDodgen_{July 2, 2008
July
07
Jul
2
02
2008
08:10 AM
8
08
10
AM
PDT}

Well, so far it's been a terrible summer where I live. Hardly a day passes without rain - or to use the new scientific term: "global leaking" ;-)steveO_{July 2, 2008
July
07
Jul
2
02
2008
08:04 AM
8
08
04
AM
PDT}

In case you didn't notice - the 1975 article was referring to scientists reactions to "global cooling" and predicting a minor ice age with dire consequences!Borne_{July 2, 2008
July
07
Jul
2
02
2008
07:33 AM
7
07
33
AM
PDT}

In Newsweek, April 28, 1975 one could read the following:
There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon...
ending with :
Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.
The whole 1975 article can be found here The more things change the more they're the same. ;-) You can't trust "consensus science". See also Michael Crichton's take on the whole subject in his speech Aliens cause global warmingBorne_{July 2, 2008
July
07
Jul
2
02
2008
07:28 AM
7
07
28
AM
PDT}

Jay Richards on Global Warming. http://www.acton.org/media/20080417_christians_and_global_warming.phpCharlie_{July 1, 2008
July
07
Jul
1
01
2008
09:17 PM
9
09
17
PM
PDT}

The debate here is not about evidence and it never has been. It got colder for a while then it got warmer- then it flattened out and now its starting to get cooler again, all within a perfectly normal pattern. The only debate that there is- is about the accuracy and honesty of the computer models. The computer models with their data (which absolutely needs to be checked and double checked especially when we are talking about fractions of a degree!) need to have an excellent formula that is capable of closely realizing the effect of the actual CO2 omissions and their possible inflation over X amount of years and "how this effects or not effects the global climate." This is where the debate is and it IS NOT ON TV NEWS! It cannot be. The questions are too precise and complex for 99.999999% of people to have any accurate opinion on. So show me articles by climatologists and computer scientists and physicists that pose "real" arguments about the programs and their formulas. This is where the "real" showdown is being waged.Frost122585_{July 1, 2008
July
07
Jul
1
01
2008
08:43 PM
8
08
43
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply