Monday
15Jun2009
South American Glacier Grows Despite Global Warming
Monday, June 15, 2009 at 02:28AM Argentina’s Perito Moreno glacier constantly grows even as it spawns icebergs the size of apartment buildings into a frigid lake, maintaining a nearly perfect equilibrium since measurements began more than a century ago.
“We’re not sure why this happens,” said Andres Rivera, a glacialist with the Center for Scientific Studies in Valdivia, Chile. “But not all glaciers respond equally to climate change.”
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (84)
that is interesting. but what is the point of the post. that global warming is fake?
I wonder what Dan Quale has to say about this bit of information? The earth changes and that's all there is to it. Look at El Nino, for instance, climates changed everywhere and people were terrified, and yet the earth recovered.
whatever you righties want to think. in the last 200 plus year the persons of tghe world have dumped and produced so much crap it is naive to think it has not effected the environment. let us go until we totally destroy the earth.
So how did it affect the environment?
Watching you people write about global warming is sort of like watching a 5 year old kid trying to figure out the complexities of Einstein's general and special relativity theories.
As kids haven't yet formed the necessary skill set in order to firmly grasp complex logical reasoning, some of these theocratic right-wing nuts share the same problems. They just don't have the necessary base in order to understand something like global warming or the theory of evolution. Instead, you see a ridiculous simpleton analysis of some very interesting scientific phenomena.
Makes for a good laugh though.
Global warming is a massive unscientific politically driven hoax.
Leticia is right, the earth recovers. Environmentalists treat the earth like it is weak and man is god, having power over it. We're just not that big.
Here's Hawaii's Kilauea volcano, which constantly erupts sending lava into the sea, spewing toxins so deadly that humans must be kept at a safe distance to ensure the safety of their health.
Here's part of the Warning on the government of Hawaii website:
How many centuries have dangerous toxins been bellowing into the atmosphere in Hawaii and why haven't environmentalists done anything to stop the ashes and fumes?
Point being, Mother Earth seems more powerful at causing harm than man, and yet the earth has a built in cleansing mechanism. All the natural earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and so on have created more pollutants than man has in recorded history.
We need to respect and care for the earth, but we also need to focus more on how we treat our fellow man than trying to help the earth when it doesn't need it as the expense of man.
Global warming is a cyclical phenominon. It comes and goes as decades come and go. It is the natural course of the earth living its life. That's why Greenland is now icy and Iceland is green.
Nature should be respected, but why? Because it is God's creation.
More on Hawaii's volcanic ashes, pollutants and health impact.
Perhaps it is counter to Nature or God to try to control aerosol use, curb acid rainfall and to inhibit the sea-levels from rising; but natural or not, count me in. I don't want to be forced up a mountain.
"why haven't environmentalists done anything to stop the ashes and fumes?"
Seek to control that which you can control. That's not the percentage of gasses we can easily do anything about.
"the earth has a built in cleansing mechanism."
Yes, the Earth frequently suffers mass extinctions. I'd rather not resort to that cleansing mechanism.
"volcanic eruptions and so on have created more pollutants than man has in recorded history."
True, but irrelevant. If 100 tons is safe, that doesn't mean that 110 tons is safe too. Climate is chaotic: small changes lead to big changes.
"Global warming is a massive unscientific politically driven hoax."
Is just silly.
1) I bet you can't prove it's a hoax. Who's in on it?
2) It's not politically driven: the biggest interests in politics and industry would love for there not to be any global warming. The existence of (genuinely politically driven) research designed to cast uncertainty and doubt about mainstream climate findings demonstrates this.
3) How is it unscientific? It's based on evidence and it gets published, so what's the basis of this accusation? In comparison with creationism it gets a big thumbs up from science, surely?
billions of persons and incredible amounts on industrialization and we are not that big. Was that a joke? Amy, are you a scientists. It is scientist who agree on global warming ,just not environmentalist. Of course there are natural events that cause pollution and contribute to global warming but that does not mean that man has not contributed to or been the main cause of global warming. It is a rightie driven political motive to try to undermine the scientific evidence of global warming.
There are plenty of scientists who oppose Al Gore's global warming theories. I recall in the 70's scientists saying we were in a dangerous cooling trend that could kill off entire species.
And now we're having the opposite discussion.
And in 25 years we'll be having the opposite discussion.
Are you a scientist, greatone?
Global warming as an ideology is spiritually driven. People need something to believe in, it's that simple. Sound science doesn't support the theory that man is causing global warming.
If it were really such a threat, wouldn't Al Gore give up one of his mansions and his jet to reduce his carbon footprint? And what's he doing with 4 kids? He should have one.
I am not a scientist but are you. So righties like Limbaugh and other right wing talk show host know more about global warming than the majority of scientist.
I once knew a glass shop owner whose business had tapered off. In debt up to his eyeballs, he needed to generate income or risk loosing the business, so he concocted a brilliant scheme. He decided to return to town late in the evening and break a bunch of windows of other business, knowing that their insurance would cover the cost of replacement.
The following morning was the beginning of his best day on record because everybody in town liked him and trusted him... until the local bankโs ATM surveillance camera tape was reviewed by the local LEs and he was identified.
His efforts are not unlike global warming alarmists. When one needs to generate revenue, one merely has to create a crisis and then provide the solution in the form of cap and trade, as well as providing new sources for green goods and services; all at the expense of โWe the Peopleโ.
I like the part where Tomas pours great effort into discrediting conservatives when he says
"Watching you people write about global warming is sort of like watching a 5 year old kid trying to figure out the complexities of Einstein's general and special relativity theories.
So why is the only solution being offered is a drastic cutback on energy use? And who will enforce this cutback?
Has everyone forgotten the TTAPS study, one of the greatest scientific papers ever published?
No, I'm not a scientist. Never claimed to be. But I'm not a black man and I still have a right to have an opinion about Obama policies.
72.2% of all scientists profess a DISBELIEF in God
Another 20.8% are agnostic
So of the scientists you believe support global warming, do you think their religious views affect their premises? Evnironmentalism has devolved into a religion.
Many scientists find the man made global warming theory unsustainable and inconclusive.
I am pretty sure that you asked me if I was a scientist to attempt to undermine any opinion I had. being black, white, yellow or whatever has no effect on political opinion, however on scientific evidence being a scientist helps before claiming it is nonsense. did you ever think if Jesus appeared today he would be thought of as a crazy man or the leader of a cult group. why was it different back 2000 or so tears ago. he may have just been a crazy man.
Ref:"whatever you righties want to think. in the last 200 plus year the persons of tghe world have dumped and produced so much crap it is naive to think it has not effected the environment. let us go until we totally destroy the earth."
Not naive at all...Mother nature dumped more pollutants into the air in just one burp...or don't you remember Mount Saint Helens...and all the other volcanos around the globe...including under the sea....wow does that water heat up when she burps under the sea! ...and causes all kinds of ruckus with prevailing currents...
You can try all you want to destroy the earth, but Mother Nature will win! Stop your assinine politics with Mother Nature...she can take care of herself pretty nicely. When you learn that this climate change garbage is just a revenue producer for the Uninted Nations and your sick politicians maybe you'll wise up!
"...he may have just been a crazy man..."
Wrong. He was either a liar or is God. based on historical and archiological ecidence beyond the parameters of the bible, (see Josephus' writings as well as other roman secular accounts), I'm betting on the latter.
Lots of liars are crazy men
Amy: "So of the scientists you believe support global warming, do you think their religious views affect their premises?" I don't know of any evidence that scientists who believe in God are more likely to be skeptical about global warming. There most certainly exist some Christians who acknowledge the threat from the current rapidly changing climate.
"So why is the only solution being offered is a drastic cutback on energy use? And who will enforce this cutback?"
Michael: I don't know what you mean. Energy use is not the only thing climatologists recommend: there've been great successes to do with changing the types of chemicals used in fridges and aerosols, and changing patterns of land use etc.
If we do need to regulate industrial energy use, who else could regulate but governments? Are you saying that because it's a job for Government, Governments must want to do it? My point is, governments don't want to campaign on reducing energy use or making current industrial practices more expensive etc. The political instinct is definitely to appease the lobbies and ignore or greatly reduce the targets scientists recommend.
"...My point is, governments don't want to campaign on reducing energy use or making current industrial practices more expensive etc. The political instinct is definitely to appease the lobbies and ignore or greatly reduce the targets scientists recommend..."
Ever heard of Cap and Trade? You don't think gov't will benefit from revenue generated from this?
Sidebar: It's been unuusally cool here in Korea, getting up to 79 degrees or cooler. It's more like fall here. Last year it was normally hot, this year?
I noticed on a US news program out of NYC a couple days ago they said they were having "fall like temperatures" and how unusual that was.
It'll get hotter as the summer progresses, but this sure doesn't feel or look like global warming, and the past few winters have been the coldest recorded in history around the globe.
So we're suppposed to abandon our senses, and our common sense, and put faith in a theory that shows little evidence of reality.
Al Gore preaches dooms day while he lives like a carbon footprints are going out of style while the rest of us are supposed to make all these lifestyle changes for, what? To support his religious beliefs?
Greatone, let's review: you asked above: Amy, are you a scientists?
I told you I'm not, and asked you the same, since you are the one who broguth it up.
Experts in a particular field don't have the corner on truth and facts but they also have an obligation to report what is, not what they want it to be. You can be a man and have a position on abortion, can't you? And you can be right or wrong about it.
Jez, if Christians are wrong about their faith and morals as many suppose, why are they right when they support global warming or evolution?
Jez, like evolution, carbon dating, and other fad science, global warming theory is completely dependent upon man-made models that extrapolate their variables over extravagant amounts of time (read: millions and millions and millions...) under unobservable conditions.
That requires faith, not reason. It is a cosmological conclusion, not a scientific one. The reality is that there are no records of the earth's aggregate temperature older than a few decades. The idea that the earth is billions of years old further complicates the likelihood of any of these models being reliable. If a cycle of weather conditions lasted 500 years, we would have no way of knowing whether a warming spell would lead to the apocalyptic scenarios painted by greenists (earth spirit pagans). The samples are simply too small and will not provide adequate data from which to draw a scientific conclusion. Unless of course, you just 'want it to be true' and so you ascribe blind faith to your models.
Its a stupid model and as Amy pointed out with deft skill, the so-called scientific community has a fatally lopsided predisposition against religion, revealed truths, existence of the spiritual world, etc... They bring their biases and cosmogenies to their work and put faith in their models which are absolutely dependent on faith and not real scientific data.
CO2 is not a pollutant and actually helps the earth. Just as the Chinese bought into the overpopulation myth in the 1970s and manipulated their demographics to their own hurt (in Confucianist China, sons are more desired - in the 1-child-per-family forced abortion policy, China does not have enough women for their men to marry), so these global warming mythologizers are devizing world-government fixes to a problem that does not exist. Their solutions like that of the communist Chinese will cause many, many more problems than they could ever have fixed.
These models and theories sound convincing in academia, in the laboratory, in the abstract, but fail miserably under the scrutiny of real life and the awesome power of Nature and Nature's God.
31,000 American scientists (including 9,000+ PhDs) say there is no scientific evidence for [so-called] global warming.
http://www.petitionproject.org/
Here are 100 scientists contradicting President Obama's assertion that science is conclusive about it - giving their names:
http://www.cato.org/special/climatechange/ClimateAd_ChicagoTrib_Rev.pdf
Even as a political issue, global warming is a turkey, ranking 20th out of 20 issues American voters see as important:
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=42474
Gary: businesses have a profit motive, politicians have a vote motive. Politicians don't get to keep that money, and neither do their parties. If cap and trade looses votes (I guess it does), and if it looses large party donations (I'm sure it does) then they would much rather not do it. So what "benefit" would the governments see from cap and trade?
Amy: "Jez, if Christians are wrong about their faith and morals as many suppose, why are they right when they support global warming or evolution?"
My point is that their religious beliefs do not appear to be related to their opinion on the climate. What is your point? :)
I quite agree with your reticence in using general character traits of individual scientists to judge their work. I recommend addressing the actual arguments and evidence, and maybe using their level of expertise and relevant experience to judge their claims.
"...global warming theory is completely dependent upon man-made models that extrapolate their variables over extravagant amounts of time (read: millions and millions and millions...) under unobservable conditions."
I wouldn't say "unobservable." We live on the same planet that hosted dinosaurs millions of years ago, and was bombarded with meteors billions of years ago, and some of the marks those episodes made are still here, and are eminently observable: those marks are the only reason we know about them.
"That requires faith, not reason."
There are many reasons why it is not faith. The models are arrived at through reason, not revelation, and are validated against the observable marks left by those events. Any belief held in a scientific theory is not faith, nobody regards conflicting evidence as a "test" of faith, and it is not considered admirable to hold an unwavering, faithful belief in a theory which is failing.
"there are no records of the earth's aggregate temperature older than a few decades."
Direct measurement of temperature goes back to the mid 19th century. Tree rings stretch back thousands of years, as do qualitative historical reports of things like exceptional harvests and frozen rivers. Ice cores go back hundreds of thousands of years into prehistory, and sediment cores go even further.
If you want to claim these methods are all fads, you would have to argue against them properly.
"If a cycle of weather conditions lasted 500 years, we would have no way of knowing whether a warming spell would lead to the apocalyptic scenarios painted by greenists (earth spirit pagans)."
If temperatures rise, we know
1) ice will melt, sea levels will rise, land will disappear.
2) crops won't grow where they used to. Maybe we'll be able to roll with it, but human agriculture tends to be a monoculture (based on just one (or a handful of) species), and monocultures are in danger when conditions change.
3) there will be many extinctions, which could threaten food chains and eliminates a fantastic resource for pharmaceutical research.
Any one of these will result in great expense, suffering and many deaths.
"the so-called scientific community has a fatally lopsided predisposition against religion,"
I'm not sure that's true, I wonder if any group of people sufficiently trained in the nature of belief and the appliance of doubt would give similarly guarded answers about god-belief. It's possible that you're equivocating over the meaning of the word "believe," similarly to how we tend to equivocate over the meaning of the word "faith."
"models which are absolutely dependent on faith and not real scientific data."
Well, the data upon which scientists make models is public. What's wrong with it? Is it simply too slight, is it made up, is it collected in a flawed manner?
"CO2 is not a pollutant and actually helps the earth."
The dichotomy that a gas must either be a pollutant or an aid is too simple. Obviously, if I gave you enough CO2 you would die, but it's not sensible to label CO2 a poison and therefore seek to eliminate it entirely. Too much of it is bad. (Of course: "too much" is by definition precisely that quantity which is excessive. Enough word games).
"These global warming mythologizers are devizing world-government fixes to a problem that does not exist. Their solutions like that of the communist Chinese will cause many, many more problems than they could ever have fixed."
Well, we can look to a kinder historical example than that: the 1980s "world government" solution to the problem of CFCs attacking ozone is working: the ozone depletion has not fully recovered yet, but is definitely recovering. This is a concrete example where climatologists measured a change, alerted the government and we fixed it before it was too late.
"fail miserably under the scrutiny of real life and the awesome power of Nature and Nature's God."
Is it your belief that God would have intervened with the ozone layer if we had just left it?
Jez, we have reached an impasse. You give credulity to theories with zero evidence and no facts. No scientist ever observed a single occurrance that supposedly happened a billion years ago, and his opinion that geological evidence buttresses his position is easily and convincingly used to make the point of the young earth creationist. Stop calling it science - it is not and cannot be - until the evidence is proven without faith, speculation, theories and spurrious models that are challenged even within the atheist dominated scientific community.
If you doubt the scientific community's bias against religion even after Amy gave you the stats from the scientists' own polling, there is nothing else to say. You are not interested in facts or truth, but you are searching for arguments and theories to buttress your own worldview. Your way of deducing is neither rational nor objective, even by the most generous standards.
You have absolutely no proof nor evidence about any alleged damage to the ozone layer nor any evidence that some act of man has 'repaired' the ozone layer. This is all junk science, pop science and an expression of the new paganisim. The things you allege as truth are just empty articles of faith. No one knows the age of the earth, the length of so-called ice ages, etc... Its all based on the opinions of scientists subscribing to various theories based on ever changing models that disagree with each other and are based on UNOBSERVABLE conditions.
At least God raised His Son from death to offer undisputable proof of His divinity. Junk science offers theories, models, stories, myths, and models that disagree with each other and must be changed every few years to adjust to 'new' findings.
Let me ask you this: if global warming is indeed man made, what are YOU prepared to give up to reduce your carbon footprint? Be specific.
"Gary: businesses have a profit motive, politicians have a vote motive. Politicians don't get to keep that money, and neither do their parties. If cap and trade looses votes (I guess it does), and if it looses large party donations (I'm sure it does) then they would much rather not do it. So what "benefit" would the governments see from cap and trade?..."
The entire political perspective of conservatives can be summed up in this thought: we seek smaller government, lower taxes, and more personal responsibility which results in greater FREEDOM.
Liberal Democrats are the polar opposite wanting larger government, higher taxes and less personal accountability, which from my perspective results in dimished freedom.
Cap and Trade will greatly tax you and I allowing the federal government to grow and will lower our ability to operate independently from the government resulting in dimished freedoms.
Our federal government was established to be subordinate to the state governments, and was NEVER intended to be the goliath it has become.
Quote:
"My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government."
Thomas Jefferson
Off topic, but actually we have directly observed events billions of years ago: eg this supernova.
"Stop calling it science - it is not and cannot be - until the evidence is proven without faith, speculation, theories and spurrious models that are challenged"
Science is theories, models and challenges. If you won't accept that, then I agree we are at an impasse.
"you doubt the scientific community's bias against religion even after Amy gave you the stats from the scientists' own polling"
I do. The important quantity is not the proportion of theist scientists, but whether there is a difference between the range of opinion among theist and non-theist scientists. That's a pretty basic aspect of how to handle stats.
"You have absolutely no proof nor evidence about any alleged damage to the ozone layer nor any evidence that some act of man has 'repaired' the ozone layer."
Not so. Ozone depletion was detected directly using the Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer satellite, and the mechanism has been verified by applying lab-measured reaction constants to chemical transport models.
As I say, the repair is not yet complete since the halogens remain in the upper atmosphere -- we've not actively removed them, we've just stopped putting them there. It's stopped getting worse, and as the halogens dissipate the layer will recover. This is entirely due to international action and the Montreal Protocol.
"No one knows the age of the earth, the length of so-called ice ages, etc... Its all based on the opinions of scientists subscribing to various theories"
If you have problems with any or all of tree rings, ice cores, sediment cores etc., then you will have to argue against them properly. You're just making passionate assertions.
"if global warming is indeed man made, what are YOU prepared to give up to reduce your carbon footprint?"
The impact an individual can have is pretty small, and is used by politicians to distract us from the regulations they should but are unwilling to impose on industry. However, I buy local food (it's fresher anyway), live near where I work (avoiding a commute!), drive an efficient car (I very rarely find the need to race anyway), rarely fly and heat my flat sensibly. I'm not a hair-shirted martyr by any means. :)
Gary: The aims of Liberal Democrats might sometimes require an enlargement of government, but I don't believe that enlargement is itself a primary aim.
Ideology aside, I think the primary incentive for a politician is popularity; particularly to be popular with the strongest lobbyists who can contribute the most towards campaign funds.
oh, that makes it ok, then.
I got no time for politicians who are interested in popularity. I'm interested in the politician who will represent his constituency in spite of his own opinion.
Jez, you obviously do not understand big government statism in the US. Enlargement of government is THE point. The liberal democrats want to establish a socialist governnment nanny-state in the US and the growth of government is absolutely critical to that end.
May they fail miserably and may the most free, prosperous and religious nation on earth remain so!
"I got no time for politicians who are interested in popularity. I'm interested in the politician who will represent his constituency in spite of his own opinion."
Are these two things somehow different?
Jez,
my friend says you're retarded... I agree.
I like your friend, (s)he clearly has the intellectual confidence to be willing to appear stupid. :)
Johnny: do you now acknowledge the ozone depletion measurements?
I have not studied the issue, but as with all model-based 'scientific' proclamations, I doubt the integrity of the process, and especially the recent (and unscientific) phenomenon of "consensus science."
The arrogance of attempting to date the age of the earth when no archeological evidence can even hope to hint at a civilization older than the Biblical Mesopotamian civilization of just 6,000 years is all I need to know. Show me archelogical evidence of human civilizations 500,000 years old and maybe you have something. But bald assertions based on models that purport to tell us more than we knew 5,000 years ago (and thus closer to the seminal events) are nothing but blind guesses, shots in the dark, and empty calculations based on ever-changing 'models' that continuously fail.
I was thinking more of the direct measurements from the TOMS satellite than the theoretical work.
Let's review an example: what failure has the tree ring model suffered?
People who say that the only acceptable solution to global warming is abstinence from fossil fuels are like people who say that the only acceptable solution to unwanted pregnancy is abstinence from sex.
I thought about getting into the "science" of the thing but I've tried that one before. I doubt it will work any better now than it did those some months ago.
Somebody mentioned logic or some such upthread. For somebody who is so big on logic and figuring things out it seems the little but telling details escape perusal. If the weather can't be predicted beyond 10 days and even that with faulty accuracy, why would anyone believe global warming, or cooling for that matter, be predicted with any sort of accuracy?
Week before last, hubby drove through a blizzard. This week he's up in the northeast with 70's weather and rain. This is the latter part of June. Spring started a bit late and it looks like summer is going to be short. I expect an early fall and all of nature's little creatures that city folk usually don't pay much mind to seem to agree with me.
BTW, the Farmer's Almanac has been the best weather predictor for at least 100 years. It seems to agree with me, too. All things considered, I'd pay more attention to it than a bunch of politicians in D.C., the U.N., Al Gore who is not a scientist, either, or anybody else standing around with their hands out for the money it will take to prevent sci-fiction.
Another btw, pulling out the scientist card is really stupid considering the different types of scientists there are. Besides, the computer based models upon which global warming theory exists is only as good as the computer scientists programming them, which is to say, there are certain assumptions that have to be made before the models can be built. What if those assumptions are wrong?
jez, using tree rings as dating calculators is a method that has been used for thousands of years. It can hardly be compared to today's eccentric modeling and wild theorizing that is baldly asserted as incontrovertible fact. Tree rings do not suggest millions of anything, do not suggest evolution or global warming or any other such nonsense. They tell us the approximate age of the tree, that's it.
All great civilizations contain the Flood narrative that is witnessed in the Hebrew Scriptures. They we all closer to the actual events than self-important paganized 'scientists' who attempt to refute history based on their extravagant models. I guess if we allowed these 'scientists' to dictate all educational disciplines, they would tell us that the American Revolution never occurred because it was impossible to pull off. Indeed, those whose political science is derived from the natural science of today's modeling madmen are trying to reverse the American Revolution and to build a socialist, atheist state.
Great comment Steph. In regards to using science to debate with those who argue from an emotional perspective, you are wisw to abandon all efforts, for the ability to reason is always lost in the cacofany of feelings.
For that reason, I sited the example of the glass store owner, but as usual, it seemed to fly over the heads of our pet trolls.
Thanks, Gary. Remember way back when I posted link after link to back up my arguments and the person arguing against me didn't even have the sense to recognize the links? But they know more than we do, right?
Johnny, arguing from a religious standpoint doesn't work, either. Or an atheist one. People have to have something to believe in and I suppose junk science can be their religion just as easily as any other.
You can cite verse after verse after verse and it will not faze them. No matter how bull headed and obtuse they choose to be, I am still comforted by the fact that God will not allow them to destroy his creation so easily as they think they can.
In California, a pipeline was turned off to protect some minnows that lived in ditches or some such. Now crops in the area the pipeline fed with water won't be growing. One wonders, when people are starving, will they then turn to God and ask him why he let such a thing happen, just so they can stoke their anger once again to fever pitch. God gave us freewill. He didn't let this happen. The people who value the lives of minnows living in ditches more than the lives of humans will have done.
Last year at Walmart there was this 4 pack of cat food for $1. I looked at that same pack today and it's now $1.47. That's a 47% increase just on simple cat food. The dry catfood my cat eats has almost doubled in price. Fresh produce has also risen in price. It's becoming increasingly difficult to afford to eat according to healthy guidelines. When all the taxes are poured onto the "unhealthy", how many will then go hungry? On top of those taxes for stupid nationalized healthcare we'll be getting cap and trade and a host of other taxes to pay for a hoax. Amy said it earlier. In the 70's there was talk of global cooling that never materialized. We and other countries spent a lot of money that did little to nothing about it. Now, it's global warming. The pendulum will swing back in a few more years because it's all a game: How to bilk the ignorant and grab ever more power over their lives.
Will they then turn to God and ask why he allowed it to happen just as they might ask why he allowed the water to be denied to the farmers in California? Just as they look to the government to cure all their ills, they think God must not exist because he doesn't operate like a fairy godmother.
Great post, Steph. Thanks for saying that!
:)
Johnny: the tree ring record goes back over 10 thousand years. Since you accept this method, do you accept this as evidence against young earth creationism (which shouldn't allow any history beyond 5000--6000 years)? Do you think it more likely that God created trees with rings that show thousands of years of the same seasonal variations -- if so, why is He trying to trick us?
Steph: Johnny and I have argued before: I hope we both bring a basic level of respect to the table, otherwise we wouldn't bother.
About 70's global cooling: What money was spent? I've made the point before that a mere handful of scientific papers made the academic press on the subject in the 70s, compared to the masses of papers contributing to the global warming question. It's not at all comparable, you're being distracted by the way the popular press covers science. However, it seems to me that those papers led to more work into atmospheric gasses, and only following that did we recognise greenhouse gasses besides water vapour and CO2 (we learned about methane etc.), and therefore a revision of the predictions. Yet this is evidence of a hoax to you?
"it's all a game: How to bilk the ignorant and grab ever more power over their lives."
Who is playing it?
Even if science turns out to be wrong about global warming, at least it's based on measurement and is our best reasoned guess; why should we abandon it, throw out the evidence and the arguments and the mathematics, and go with your gut feeling that it'll probably all be OK instead?
"People have to have something to believe in and I suppose junk science can be their religion"
I don't have a religion. I observe no faith, through ritual or otherwise. I believe in no supernatural agent providing absolute moral standards. I hold no belief concerning the cause of the universe, and I do not believe it has any purpose. Do you mean something else by "religion" than I do, or would you exclude me from that statement?
jez, religion is whatever you believe in. Atheism is a religion; just one based on the belief there is no God.
Yes, jez, junk science. During the 70s we had cap and trade and more cap and trade well into the 80s. Now, we're facing yet more of the same. "Stay alive, drive 55..." Where do you think that crap came from? Better mileage cars... You know, the ones my brother, who used to work on cars, called Japanese pop cans because even American models had a lot of Japanese parts and in collisions they were so lightweight they were deadly... but far be it from me to try to convince you otherwise. I've tried before and it doesn't work so you'll just have to figure it out for yourself.
As for your tree ring argument. There was a time when questions of time were addressed by Christ. He said that one day is like a 1000 years to his father... which was to say time was a human measurement and virtually meaningless in heaven. Belief in God and evolution are only incompatible when you think in such literal terms.
Why do those who argue against the Bible and God always use literal translations to make their cases but "interpretation" for everything else?
Jez:
I have never heard of a tree with 10,000 rings. In any event, that would not pose a problem for young earth creationists. God made Adam and Eve fully mature, not as embryos, so there is evidence for a mature creation. What is beyond reasonable dispute is that there is simply no credible archeological evidence for a civilization that predates the Mesopotamia described in Genesis. That is problematic for evolutionists.
Actually, God did not give us trees as guides, but stars and planetary formations (Genesis 1:14-15). [scientific evidence here: http://www.bethlehemstar.net/] Moreover, He created a 7-day week. Ask all your smart anthropological science buddies about that one, Jez. They can do nothing but shrug. How is it that the entire world observes a 7-day week and no one but the Hebrews (and believers in Hebrew revelation) knows where it came from? I didn't even know this until a year ago.
Outside of Genesis, there is no explanation for the universally observed 7 day week. Ponder that one, because those who posit a dialectic material universe that gradually emerged over billions of years of nature selecting the fittest to survive (by perpetual death) would do away with the Sabbath Day concept in the Bible. They can try all they want, but their hammers will continue to break upon the anvil of Genesis. The reason we observe a 7 day week is because God created it. Adam passed it on. You and I practice it. And outside of Genesis, no one has a cogent explanation for it.
The lack of any evidence for a pre-Mesopotamian civilization and a credible explanation of the seven day week are just two of many reasons that a majority of Americans even after 60+ years of exclusive indoctrination in evolutionary theory still do not beleive in it. It just doesn't make sense.
"Atheism is a religion; just one based on the belief there is no God."
Technically "atheism" also applies to the lack of belief in God.
I've made no study of it, but as far as I know there was no emissions trading set up to tackle global cooling. There was a small amount to attack acid rain in the 80s, it was effective and the goal was a good one in my opinion.
"Stay alive, drive 55..." came from the oil shortage in the 70s, didn't it? -- not so much to do with emissions.
"even American models had a lot of Japanese parts and in collisions they were so lightweight they were deadly"
Sorry, are you trying to say that American cars are better, despite using many of the same parts?
American engines, in my limited experience of them, are large and thirsty but don't actually deliver much poke compared to the comparatively smaller European ones. I don't know why that is. For example, a 3-liter V6 in Europe would rock pretty hard; in America it's barely enough to get you up a decent hill.
"Why do those who argue against the Bible and God always use literal translations to make their cases but "interpretation" for everything else?"
I was talking to Johnny, whom I know is fond of YEC.
Johnny: "I have never heard of a tree with 10,000 rings."
There isn't one. There are however trees that have been dead for a long time, but who's pattern of outer rings matches the inner rings of more recent trees; from this overlap the tree ring record can be extended beyond the lifespan of a single tree.
"there is evidence for a mature creation."
Certainly. But what of the trees who were already dead more than 6000 years ago? Did God create dead trees?
"Outside of Genesis, there is no explanation for the universally observed 7 day week."
Early astronomers would have noticed 5 objects which are not stars, (apart from the sun and the moon, obviously); we now know them as the visible planets. It's how the days are named (more obvious in eg. French).
But it is a somewhat ad hoc decision, seven doesn't neatly divide either the moon cycle or the solar year. On the other hand, 7 is the closest whole number to the length of a lunar phase. In ancient times the were a variety of week-lengths in use (eg. 8 in the Roman empire), and recently in the USSR, but most societies do seem to have settled on 7 days way before European imperialism would have forced them to. Not all though: eg. Lithuania was on a 9 day week before it adopted christianity.
I don't know why eg. east-Asia took on a 7-day week so early on, but if they hadn't they'd have converted to it by now for commercial reasons anyway.
And we shouldn't ignore the law of small numbers -- there aren't many of them, and they've got a lot of jobs to do. Coincidences are bound to be abundant.
"What is beyond reasonable dispute is that there is simply no credible archeological evidence for a civilization that predates the Mesopotamia described in Genesis."
There is certainly evidence of humans (tools, pots, paintings, skeletons etc.) prior to that time. Why do you think evolution demands a pre-Mesopotamian civilisation, anyway?
J.
Neither have I really. I merely lived through it. No it wasn't all about oil shortages. It's also where COLA (I believe that's what it's called) comes from and marked the beginning of emissions control, not just from cars but industry nationwide. Between the EPA and the unions, industry didn't stand a chance. The steel industry literally exists on life support now. Quite honestly, I'm grateful to the Japanese for their innovations even if some of the cars became deathtraps in high speed collisions(even at 55 mph). If not for them, things would have been a whole lot worse than they were. They invested in us as much as we depended on them for that investment.
That is pure bull and sounds like it came from some advertisement on TV. My American made car goes up decent hills just fine and gets 30 mpg.
What a nice way to sidestep the question in order to keep using the same lame arguments using the same literal interpretations you've been using all along.
Coincidence and conjecture finishes your post off so I won't even bother since you admitted it.
"No it wasn't all about oil shortages"
My understanding was that the mid-seventies introduction of the national speed limit was a response to the 1973 oil crisis.
"That is pure bull and sounds like it came from some advertisement on TV. My American made car goes up decent hills just fine and gets 30 mpg."
No, it came from the American-made car I drove last week which had a 3L V6 and revved its nuts off getting up (admittedly quite steep) hills.
Truth is you can have perfectly capable engines which get much better than 30 mpg, you just choose not to make them. If the car industry wants to avoid more regulations, I suggest it just cracks on with making better engines of its own accord.
But I'm basing this solely on the car which I drove, and the other cars I could here around me. These observations are anecdotal, not scientific.
"What a nice way to sidestep the question"
Honestly, it's not. Johnny is very clear that any attempt to reconcile God and evolution is dangerous heresy, and is utterly convinced of the literal truths within Genesis (the Flood, Eden, Fall of man etc.), and it really was to him that I was addressing the question.
"Coincidence and conjecture finishes your post off so I won't even bother since you admitted it."
Ooooh, I've admitted it. Let me save you some surprise and disappointment later: I don't know everything. If the game is that you and Johnny ask me random questions and when you happen across one I don't know that means you've won, then you will win.
Enjoy that victory if you need it that badly, but any bystander would agree that me not knowing exactly the origins of the 7-day week does little to discredit the climate record from pre-5000 BC.
(Aside from that, my main point about the 7-day weekend it that it has not always been universal -- if we all use it now because of a tradition that goes all the way back to Adam and God, wouldn't it have been more prominent in ancient times, closer to the source, rather than less prominent as we go further back?)