New Study Shows Polar Bear Extinction Fears Groundless
Friday, April 4, 2008 at 11:24PM Bottom Line Up Front: Despite widespread assertions that climate change endangers the polar bear population, a new study authored by 3 scientists show previous government studies warning of polar bear extinction due to global warming are”groundless” and assert that in those studies, not a single forecast of global warming was based on scientific methods.
In a new study commissioned by the U. S. government to justify the listing of polar bears as a threatened or endangered species, scientists found that the “fear of polar bears going extinction are groundless.” It also shows that polar bear numbers are currently high and the population has been increasing rapidly in recent decades.
The study, Polar Bear Population Forecasts: A Public-Policy Forecasting Audit (Washington, D.C. 4-4-08), is aimed at determining the validity of forecasts by government studies that show climate change threatening the future of the polar bear population.
Three scientists, J. Scott Armstrong of the University of Pennsylvania, Kesten Green of Monash University, and Willie Soon of The Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, authored the study and audited the government studies to assess whether they were consistent with forecasting principles.
The new study lists these assumptions as the basis for previous government forecasts:
(1) “global warming” will occur and will reduce the extent of summer sea ice;
(2) polar bears will not adapt and will thus obtain less food by hunting from the sea ice platform than they do now;
(3) listing polar bears as a threatened or endangered species will result in policies that will solve the problem without serious detrimental effects; and
(4) other policies would be inferior to those based on the Endangered Species Act.
But Green and Armstrong examined long-term climate forecasting efforts and were unable to find a single forecast of global warming that was based on scientific methods. Their audit of the GCM climate modelers’ procedures properly followed only 13% of the relevant forecasting principles and some of the contraventions of principles were critical.
In short, Green, Armstrong and Soon concluded that the government forecasts were based on false assumptions and their polar bear population forecasts contravened many principles for scientific forecasting with the reports followed fewer than one-sixth of the relevant principles.
In addition, the polar bear population is booming, not on the edge of extinction:
A survey of the animals’ numbers in Canada’s eastern Arctic has revealed that they are thriving, not declining, because of mankind’s interference in the environment.
In the Davis Strait area, a 140,000-square kilometre region, the polar bear population has grown from 850 in the mid-1980s to 2,100 today.
“There aren’t just a few more bears. There are a hell of a lot more bears,” said Mitch Taylor, a polar bear biologist who has spent 20 years studying the animals.
His findings back the claims of Inuit hunters who have long claimed that they were seeing more bears.
Professor Derocher conceded that some polar bear-related evidence of the damaging effect of global warming was misplaced.
Contrary to concern over a celebrated photograph of a bear and its cub floating on a tiny iceberg, the animals often travel in that way, he said.
“Bears will often hang out on glacier ice or large pieces of multi-year ice,” he said.
The state of Alaska yesterday questioned the scientific justification for proposals to add polar bears to the US endangered species list.
Some scientists are also questioning the climate change theory as global temperatures decrease and temperatures have not risen since 1998:
Global temperatures ‘to decrease’
Global temperatures will drop slightly this year as a result of the cooling effect of the La Nina current in the Pacific, UN meteorologists have said.
The World Meteorological Organization’s secretary-general, Michel Jarraud, told the BBC it was likely that La Nina would continue into the summer.
This would mean global temperatures have not risen since 1998, prompting some to question climate change theory.
A minority of scientists question whether this means global warming has peaked and argue the Earth has proved more resilient to greenhouse gases than predicted.
What is behind the campaign of misinformation by the majority of the scientific community who continue to tout faulty data and scientific principles? In a 1998 study, 72.2% of scientists report a “disbelief in God”:
“It appears that those from non-religious backgrounds disproportionately self-select into scientific professions. This may reflect the fact that there is tension between the religious tenets of some groups and the theories and methods of particular sciences and it contributes to the large number of non-religious scientists.”
- Elaine Howard Ecklund, assistant professor of sociology in the College of Arts and Sciences at the University at Buffalo and author of “Religion Among Academic Scientists”
Environmentalism has become a religion with scientists as the Magisterium, their faulty data as their catechism and politicians and activists as their fundamentalist preachers. Everyone needs God, but the scientific and secular communities are looking to Mother Earth rather than a divine Creator. Like the rest of us, scientists cannot separate their religious beliefs from coloring their every day lives. The problem is that, in cases like global warming and evolution, they allow their agenda to drive their data and not vice versa.
Trackback URL:
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/1739667
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (32)
AP: "... In short, Green, Armstrong and Soon concluded that the government forecasts were based on false assumptions"
SG: Wow! What a (R)elief, particularly since we know the "W" Admin. does not alter the conclusions of its own scientists for political purposes.
.... On the other hand, one wonders why the"W" Admin are 'attacking' Canadian sovereignty, trying to have the 'Northwest Passage' redefined as international 'wate(R)s', now that the ice is melting and increasing access to natural resources, even though the NWP is within its 200 mile limit. What better way to reward Canadian support in Afghanistan but provide them with Ame(R)ia's f(R)ee-dumb, "We're takin' away freedoms here, so we can provide them over there."
Anywayz ... I guess the ice is melting due to the increased wa(R)mth of God's love ... and his desire to challenge Polar Bears to become more self-sufficient as opposed to living off of handouts from Mother Nature!
Snerd
Actually Amy, if the climate warms, biological elements flourish. As testament, the 10 or so little ice ages had devastating effects on animal and plant life in the north ( Anthropologist and climatologists, concluded). If it warms up there, the bears get more fish drawn to the warmer waters. As SG complains the US just want to access Canadian resources. Well there are not that many Canadians so why not “Share” ( i.e. Mother Earth) these resources SG? At the same time you champion collectivism and individualism as yourself interests. As metaphor, I see you are throwing a party, brining the cake and eating it too – as your guests go hungry.
Don't listen to the evolutionists' hollow faith-based arguments, Amy. You nailed it in the above quote. the dialectical materialism and naturalism that these scientists begin with as their cosmological start-points are as much a religious belief as Christianity and Islam. Between you and Ben Stein, the new pagans have been dealt a mortal blow to their quasi-science.
These devastating stats also prove why evolution should NOT be taught in the classroom as the only theory of origins. It is clear that SOMEONE'S religion is being established with government dollars.
PalCat: "... If it warms up there, the bears get more fish drawn to the warmer waters."
SG: Ahhh, the 'shifting sands' of the climate change denier. First they denied the existence of evidence of change. When evidence of change was undeniable, they asserted change was constant and therefore not significant, and/or change in the form of warming is good. Kinda like them 'shifting sands' (R)-goo-ments for invading and then occupying Iraq.
I find this specific '(R)-goo-ment' interesting un-bear-able. Aside from its assertion that as the seal population dwindles, due to melting ice so that seals have less place to give birth, is its UNSCIENTIFIC assumption that fish stocks will at the same time grow in counterbalancing proportion. But why worry about such conceptual problems ... when (R)hetoric is more (R)eal than factual reality, Eh?!
PalCat: "... As SG complains the US just want to access Canadian resources. Well there are not that many Canadians so why not “Share” ( i.e. Mother Earth) these resources SG?"
SG: Well a couple fundamental issues there Pal ...
First, there is that little issue of Internal Law, its opposite being pi(R)acy, of 'coa(R)se'.
Not to mention sovereignity (R)-goo-ment; You know - the thing American soldiers are dieing for in Iraq, so that Iraq can be self determining and free, and all ... err ... Sovereign!
FYI there PalCat, Canadians already share. We share our lives in Afghanistan and 90% of our trade goes south, to the USA. Consequently, the attempt to take (read hijack and steal), Canadian resources from them is evidnce of the USA not wanting to share with Canadians, but instead to 'take' exclusive (R)ights. "I (R)rack" my brain, but somehow I can not come up with other (R)ogue State examples ...
Snerd
snerd gronk,
Lets see, just last week the "smoking" gun of global warming, frogs dying from the affects of increased warming was put into question if not outright disproven. The death of the frogs had nothing to do with increased CO2 emmissions, but it was used as evidence of a "planet in peril". The frog story is such an icon of the warming believers, almost as big as the polar bears in jeopardy, and guess what, it was all a lie. So go right ahead, its much more pleasent for the likes of you to mock then question your orthodoxy. (R) you sure you can handle the fact polar bears are not going extinct?
John-Buoy: "... these scientists begin with as their cosmological start-points are as much a religious belief as Christianity and Islam."
SG: Here we agree. All systems of knowledge are axiomatic, they are all based upon accepted truths and/or unexamined assumptions. As such, it is possible to argue Science is a belief system ... but a couple of points to refine that a bit.
Science and the 'belief' in the scientific method is NOT by definition godless. In fact the Scientific Revolution of the 1500 to 1700 was largely populated by 'scientists' who 'believed' that the order Science found in the material universe gave evidence of the presence of God. For may, Science continues to demonstrate this.
Secondly to your reference to "quasi-science" ...
John-Buoy: "... Between you and Ben Stein, the new pagans have been dealt a mortal blow to their quasi-science."
SG: By the very assertion of "quasi-science" you also define the idea of "good or proper science".
Presumably you are claiming, because scientists use a belief system when practicing science, they are being hypocritical when challenging other knowledge as a function of a belief system, and therefore unscientific. However, most scientist and most people who read (about science), acknowledge that Science is based unpon a belief system and virtually all those who study how Science works, have acknowledged this for a century. It has not lessened the viability of science, or its ability to contunue to refine its knowledge and produce new and amazing discoveries ... and of course, for you Capitalists, new products and for you Militarists, new technology. And it still produces this, inspite of those who don't believe in its possibilities.
Also, by the very assertion of "quasi-science" you define the idea of "good" or "proper science". Presumable you accept that 'good science' is possible, since you are using it, as an idea to show that scientists aren't practicing 'good science'. If not, allow me to point something out ...
The difference between 'good science' and 'good religion', is their methodology. They have different proofs. or different tests.
One test of a religious belief is the quality of experience one has, because of that belief, i.e. that I am 'saved' for example, because of my beliefs. The proof or test for Science is experimentation. The idea is that scientific method allows anyone, whatever their belief, if they use the same methodology, to get the same results.
Another and possibly more critical assertion of 'real' science, is that it doesn't claim to Prove Truth, rather it claims only to eliminate Falsehoods.
Just like religion, in science there are various levels of assertion about the absoluteness of their 'preferred' methodology. Your (R)igid stereotyping of all scientists as being as philosophically stupid as you think they are and as being as materialistic as you claim they are is ... err ... 'provably' quite unscientific and quite inaccurrate, factually, in spite of what your 'quasi-scientific' beliefs might be.
Hopefully this helps 'evolve' your understanding ...
Snerd
Actually, the proof/test for science is a theory followed by often outlandish experientation to explain or justify the theory. That's the bottom line with the three stories supplied in my article as well as my previous post about evolutionary theory and the ridiculous lengths scientists go to make their theories reality.
I am just happy the polar bears are going to survive!! They are so beautiful!
Let us hope they will continue to thrive.
Mr Gronk:
Nowhere did I use the adjective "all" in describing the intrusion of pseudo-science into the realm of cosmology, ethics and the civil religion. You inserted that into my comments.
Of course there is good science and I am very pro-science. Science is a delightful servant but a cruel master. When pseudo science (such as global warming, evolutionary theory, eugenics, bio-psychology, etc...) cloaks itself as fact and inserts itself into the realm of cosmology, philosophy, ethics, religion, etc... then I must oppose this intrusion as dangerous and deceitful.
To indoctrinate children in evolutionary thought as though it were a fact is to proselytize them into a philosophical belief held by a majority anti-religious community (see Amy's chart) and runs counter to the American civil religion. This civil religion is wholly dependent on God (per the Declaration of Independence from Great Britian). Moreover, the fruit (or as you scientists would say, the evidence) of this is in the decline of birth rates and acceleration of all manner or coarsening of the culture - to include the abominable anhilation of 45 million innocent American babies in their own mothers' womb. This level of barbarity was unheard of in America prior to the Scopes Trial. Even slavery for all its wickedness and tertiary pathologies could not make such inhuman claims as the abortion scourge.
Good science serves the commonweal as defined by moral standards that have the sanction and consensus of the people. Most Americans continue to believe in a personal creator God and derive their ethics from that religious faith. Most scientists espouse anti-God 'religion' and get a blank check to proselytize our children (with a complicit and sycophantic media as a partner) in public education.
Atheists, naturalists, dialectical materialists and pantheists have a right to practice and promulgate their religion in America. But if people are going to apply the 1st Amendment against Christian belief in the classroom, then they had better be prepared for us Christians, Jews and Muslims to confront the deceitful and unscientific indoctrination of our children in evolutionary theory and its attendant immoral praxis.
Whether I believe in global warming or not is not the substance of this response (afterall, I'm not a scientist...I'm a marketing and a policy guy). Professor Armstrong is, however, a professor of marketing. Among his many publication is one titled, Persuasive Advertising and on advertisingprinciples.com. Willie Soon is an astrophysicist, so that's a bit closer to the subject matter, and Kesten Green is engaged in forecasting in general.
I doubt if we'll be on this Earth if and when the polar bears become extinct. And I'm not sure how or why the extinction of the polar bear species might affect our children or grandchildren, other than IF there is any merit to the belief of man-generated global warming. To be fair, I work with two separate groups of world class scientists...one set believes in environmental change and man-induced global warming, and the other group does not (but they're chemists).
Johnny said:
Amen.
For far too long atheist scientists have been dictating "science" that is religion while condescending to religious people who have more credibility in terms of archeological and scientific evidence in their corner. The fact that there is an (minor) uprising in the scientific community itself shows how out of control these rouge mad scientists have become with their unsubstantiated theories.
Amy: "Actually, the proof/test for science is a theory followed by often outlandish experientation to explain or justify the theory. That's the bottom line with the three stories supplied in my article ..."
SG: Firstly, from my experience, "experientation" itself is outlandish.
However, for the iterative purposes of moving away from your caricature of science, i.e. from quasi-evidence based argument as it were, your conflation of proof and test is a good jump off point.
Anyone who actually understands science knows science never, ever proves anything. All it can do is refute the false and by so doing, refines our knowledge. Sir Karl Popper's "Conjectures and Refutations" is the seminal expression of this 'fact', if you are interested. For example, Positivists, such as yourself Amy, say, "Here are evidence X, Y and Z which support my case and therefore 'Prove' it. But, when this method is used in Science, it is called "Pseudo-Science".
Scientists know that scientifically, one can never 'prove' something, because tomorrow it is logically possible that a counter example will show up or be found, even if one can not conceive of what that might be, at the moment. 'Real' scientists 'adopt the scientific method' and accept that if one finds one counter example, then the entire theory is false or minimally called into question, until such time as the theory is able to develop and explain the anomaly, form within its concepts. Therefore 'real' scientists attempt to 'Falsify' their theories, as opposed to your comic 'Proof caricaturization' them, Amy.
Amy: "... my previous post about evolutionary theory and the ridiculous lengths scientists go to make their theories reality ..."
SG: Conversely Amy, I could 'Positivisticly' find examples of real weird Christian 'theorist', who for example have 'evidence' Christ was a mushroom eater and that Christianity is descended from drug induced psychotic states. Like your pseudo-science examples, that too is a 'provable' possibility. In sum, proof itself is not proof.
Moreover Amy, Science does not purport to be 'Perfect', but only a method to unearth false beliefs or theory. Only those who don't understand Science, or don't want to understand Science, make such claims. Scientific theories are always being overturned, disproven or refined. One would have to be an idiot not to notice this. It's what is known in the parlance of Science as "Progress" ... a concept that seems to give the Absolutists 'static'.
For example I have read a convincing argument of the evidence which concludes that the Ice Ages as commonly 'concieved' are insufficient to account for the geological changes that have occurred to the earth over time. Only time (and evidence and experimentation) will tell. That's the interesting thing about Science ... It isn't absolutist. Rather it threatens absolutism and those less able to tolerate ambiguity.
Nevertheless, Science is clever enough to distinguish between poor theories that may be dominated or lead by belief rather than evidence (i.e. supported by 'Cherry-picked' evidence). and theories that are better supported by the evidence. In fact there are those in the Scientific community who see this unending complexity as evidence of the infinite mind of God ... but then, they have the mind to be able to grasp this.
Snerd
Johnny-Buoy: "... Good science serves the commonweal as defined by moral standards that have the sanction and consensus of the people."
SG: 'Good Science', as defined by Science and as I've put forward, is judged by its application of the Scientific Method. Either you don't understand this, or you are morally judging the Scientific Method and therefore arguing tautologically that Moral Science is Moral Science.
If you are arguing the former, then your argumentation is flawed because something might come outta 'good application' of Scientific Methodology that does not serve the common weal.
If you are arguing the latter, then it allows for a case where one lives in a culture that supports the right of the woman to choose abortion and Science 'advances' that activity, that 'standard', and that would be good Science. The only counter to this 'social relativism' and for you to still argue for a 'socially moral Science', would be for you to argue, Science must adopt 'my morality'.
Johnny-Buoy: "... Most scientists espouse anti-God 'religion' and get a blank check to proselytize our children (with a complicit and sycophantic media as a partner) in public education."
SG: Really!? Most scientists?!
Would that be theoretical scientists, research scientists or applied scientist? Most scientists that I've met, if you can get a conclusion outta them, speak within parameters, with caveats.
Most scientists that I've met speak from within the scientific model AND recognize what a model is.
An instructional metaphor might be to use different optical equipment, as examples of different models. One might use a microscope and see the world through a scientific perspective. One might then change optics and use glasses and see other people and learn about humanity and a social perspective. One might then use binoculars and learn about mathematical projections and predictions into the future. One might use a telescope and when looking into the 'heavens', see evidence of God.
AND furthermore, because 'Most Scientists' have actually practices Science, they know new discoveries are always overturning current theories and are therefore unlike your caricature of 'Most Scientists', they are NOT Absolutists about the current content of Scientific Knowledge. They know it'll change, even if they don't know how it will change.
Most of the Scientist you seem to 'know', appear to be very poor examples and appear to be unique amomalitic group, if they exist at all beyond your opinion, or fantasy, that is.
Most Scientists argue that Science should be taught in Science Class and Religion should be taught in Religion Class. To have it otherwise would be like praying in Home Economics Class for ingredients to combine themselves and to bake themselves. However, this is what most fundamentalist Christians argue. They argue that Religion should be taught in Religion Class and Science Class.
Christian and Islamic Fundamentalists such as the latter case, are unable to tolerate the concept of Scientific Model, because they are fixated on Absolute Belief. By definition, Absolutism can not tolerate different ways of looking at things ...
... but 'Most Scientists' can. After all. how many Scientists are arguing that because Science exists, Religion should not be taught in Religion Class? How many are arguing for Science being taught as an equal and competing belief, in Religion Class!?
The answer is rhetorical. Clearly they are NOT. Why? ... because they are tolerant of different views, because they are NOT Absolutists
Snerd
Ignore the elephant all you want my fundie friends. We all see it, even if you won't talk about it.
"Internal Law" --SG
Uhhh that is against collectivism, e.g. Mother Nature according to your OP. It is a quite nationalistic view, and something the socialists fault the Repubs. Y're still having your cake.
"mention sovereignity " --SG
that is against collectivism too. That is more of an individualist capitalist republican ideology.
"90% of our trade goes south" --SG
Who else is going to purchase your stuff? Certainly the US does not force Canada to share its trade. Why doesn’t Canada trade with Iran or N. Korea? Certainly the US cannot dictate to the white north what it can and cannot do.
You have suspicion that the US will annex Canada. Just wondering? Is it the cold that freezes a certain part of the brain that makes one fanaticize that this scenario could possible take place – or is this fear or psychosis only a local issue with you?
Did you know that Karl Marx was a globalist – collectivist. So why are you intrepid about forming a US-Canada- Mexico alliance or “grand state.” I suspect you fear change for change’s sake – and it has nothing more to do with anything else – a perfectly normal behavior. Just relax. You do like the democratic party of the US don’t you?
BTW secular science is a religion. It has all the prescriptive elements. Secularism is in fact a religion. Instead of believing in higher being as God, secularists believed that the banal carnal nature of man is deity – first among others.
What Scientific Model model are you talking about?
Darwin’s missing link? Well where is it? Any clue?
Mr Gronk:
I know you are in the teaching, not the learning mode, but you established, rather than refuted my argument. I respectfully ask you to consider the fact that someone's cosmological viewpoint is utilized in the adavancment of public education and I would argue that it is a cosmological viewpoint not held by most Americans and is completely and utterly foreign to the intent of the Framers.
If you do not understand the dangerous intrusion of unproven and unprovable scientific theory in contemporary social and political theory, then we are at an impasse and cannot proceed. The fact that science-as-cosmology has already been experimented with ad infinitum by 19th and 20th century utopinanists who plunged the world into its most bloody epoch is beyond dispute.
If you want to advance scientific theories that are based on extrapolations of models over extravagant measures of time/space under static or unobservable conditions, then by all means do it in the private sector in the market place of ideas. But no one has any right to indoctrinate children against their own religion by the arm of the state as exists in public education today.
Yes, most scientists (or did you not read the survey statistics in the lower part of the blog entry?)...
Religion that is not absolutist is worthless. Science that is absolutist is likewise worthless and in addition is dangerous.
Your model breaks down very evidently when you say
Science is no more a peer to religion than a dog is to a man. Conflation of the two is a manifestation of the arrogance of science today in that it posits itself as an equal. Religion speaks to the entirety of existence - nature, politics, eternity, the spiritual life, ethics, culture, society, economics, humanities, art, etc... Science needs to inform but not usurp religion and religious thought.
As I have stated and continue to emphasize, science is a useful servant but a cruel master. Those who would assert that scientific theories (which you concede are dynamic and frequently disproven) are evidence against revealed truth (which belongs in the domain of faith and reason) are demigogues and charlatans intruding into that which they know not.
I support your theory that science reveals the God of creation. I agree with you that religious men have been the great scientists throughout history until quite recently. We must part company however when you elevate science to the level of religion in scope, importance and reliability.
grumpy, what elephant in the room are you talking about?
Hey Johnny, tell Amy about the elephant you keep avoiding.
You know, the one I brought up three times in an earlier post, without a reply from my fundie friends.
What elephant?
"We must part company however when you elevate science to the level of religion in scope, importance and reliability."
Did you honestly say "reliability"??????
Name me one repeatable experiment that demonstrates a religious "reality".
Amy,
If evolution is true, then there could be no Original Sin, no Fall. If evolution is true, then Jesus' "sacrifice" was meaningless.
The Christian faith has been completely reliable in its historical context with archeology and scientific fact corroborating dates, places and events.
Repeatable experiement that demonstrates a religous reality? I don't quite understand the question but would point to the fact that Christianity is the world's largest religion and it grows every time it is persecuted.
I agree with you about evolution (not that I think you agree with your statement) but theistic evolutionists sayd original sin still existed because after God breathed a soul into the first human, the proclivity for concupiscience existed. I disgree and find that argument highly problematic. I've also stated that evolution and Christianity are incompatible requiring religion to bend to evolution and so-called science, not vice versa.
Grumpy assumes that science is on the side of evolution. He is out gunned by the facts. Amy's post about no human bones older than 10,000 years exposes that fallacy. Neither is there any evidence of a civilization older than the biblical Mesopotamia. There are hundreds of rock solid evidences for the book of Genesis, but his world view (based on his faith) will not allow him to believe what the Living God has pressed upon his conscience.
I hear you Johnny. But what else could you say? You start from an unalterable conclusion amd must fit everything around it. Hardly a reliable, or worthwhile, method for advancing knowledge.
BTW, the original story connected to this post has to do with human bones in America, not the world, no?
The founder of my religion rose from the dead and appeared to hundreds of witnesses.
He also made Himself know to me in a way that I cannot deny any more than you could deny knowing your own father or mother.
I am a witness to Jesus Christ as the Divine Savior of humankind and I appeal to your conscience in the sight of God, believe the good news of Christ's saving love for you.
No matter whose bones someone may find in North America, no one can ever locate the bones of Jesus of Nazareth - they are in his resurrected body at the right hand of God Almighty.
Of course I don't believe that, but you are free to believe what ever you want. And I am free not to have to.
Johnny, you say that "dialectical materialism and naturalism" (although what your objection to dialectics is I can't imagine) constitute a religion. I'd take issue with that, since to me a religion is something more specific than a collection of beliefs.
But more important than that: maybe those things don't even constitute a "belief". Science requires those things to be assumed but not necessarily presumed; in other words, in order for the scientific method to work, one must adopt a position of naturalism and materialism. What can you learn from experiment if you consider supernatural and non-material hypotheses??
Note that naturalism and materialism may not be true, (although that doesn't make science useless; it's patently obvious from everyday life that science is extremely useful).
Jez, you will never find me arguing that science is useless. Search my posts - I believe I have been consistent in asserting that science is a wonderful servant but a cruel master. I also reject the cosmologies offered by many contemporary scientists as factual - when in fact they are unproven and unprovable theories based on application of models that require faith.
Throughout history, many of the world's great scientists have been Jews, Christians and Muslims. Today, religious scientists are forced to check their faith at the door and embrace the naturalism and materialism of the atheist or risk being railroaded out of the scientific community. Click on the Ben Stein link at the top of this page if you don't believe me.
What do you think about my suggestion that materialism and naturalism are necessary underpinnings for any hypothesis you might want to test scientifically?
Hi, my name is Robert, and i am a polar bear and I do not fully agree with what you are saying. The polar bear population is growing, because that is how normal population are, they grow over time. But, what is going to happen when all the polar bear are dead becuase all the ice has melted. Maybe you should write a little about how the polar bears are infact in danger of becoming exstinct.
You write very well for a polar bear, Robert.