Discussion:
DDT, The Left's War On Science
(too old to reply)
o*nob
2009-10-20 03:46:25 UTC
Permalink
October 19 2009



QUOTE: According to this bizarre conspiracy theory
any person or organization supportive of even the
highly restricted use of DDT in the fight against
malaria is promoting smoking. Now since tobacco
companies are obviously evil, as is their product,
DDT advocates are evil, as is DDT.



QUOTE: it's a lot simpler to discredit the
messenger than it is to refute his fact-based
message.



QUOTE: In attacking DDT, Carson's acolytes are
denying science. DDT, unique in its ability to
both kill and repel mosquitoes, remains an
effective tool in the fight against malaria;
properly used, as in Eritrea and South Africa, for
example, it saves many lives



QUOTE: The Left should call a halt to their
ongoing war on DDT and thereby on science







Religious adherents do not take criticisms of
their holy scriptures lightly.



Thus Leftists swiftly and viciously attacked my
Quadrant Online essay exposing flaws in the most
holy of holy, Rachel Carson's Silent Spring.



The response is typical of the way dissent is
dealt with by true believers who do not tolerate
any questioning of their faith.



There is much truth in Silent Spring but the book
is often anything but scientific.



Carson, nominally a scientist - marine biology -
made her living writing. To stimulate sales she
added spice to her story by taking liberties with
the truth:



"For the first time in the history of the world,
every human being is now subjected to contact with
dangerous chemicals, from the moment of conception
until death. "



This outlandishly unscientific claim on its own
discredits the whole book - the natural
environment is awash with dangerous chemicals.



As I noted, Carson further misled readers in
suggesting that DDT was a product of chemical
weapons research.



Even worse, she describes DDT as a carcinogen of
unsurpassed potency, able to cause leukemia in a
matter of months.



"Beck is lying! Quadrant is waging a war on
science! "yelp the Left.



"Our beloved Rachel did not say that DDT causes
leukemia; rather, she was talking about the highly
toxic benzene in the carrier solvent in which the
DDT was dissolved." This argument conveniently
ignores that the book's index references the
horrific tale in question under "Leukemia, DDT and
case histories of".



My assertion that DDT poses little threat to
health is attacked by referencing research showing
that "DDT and its breakdown product DDE may be
associated with adverse health outcomes".



Carrying that logic further, perhaps we should all
start showering out on the lawn under the hose to
preclude a possibly fatal fall we may someday
suffer in the bathroom - statistically, a good
possibility.



Research studies "proving" DDT causes genital
defects in newborns are paraded for the
edification of those who already "know" how
harmful DDT is.



Unfortunately, the cited studies are unscientific,
having been conducted with a stringency
approximately equal to that applied to high school
science experiments.



The acute toxicity of DDT is "confirmed" by citing
the unfortunate death of a child "who ingested one
ounce of a 5% DDT:kerosene solution". The cause of
death is not specified, however, perhaps resulting
from the ingestion (or aspiration) of the
poisonous kerosene. If DDT were proven to be the
causative factor this would be the one and only
documented DDT fatality.



From the fringe Left comes the absurd assertion
that eminent cancer researcher and developer of
the Ames test for identifying possible
carcinogens, Bruce Ames, was involved "in secret
testing by tobacco companies" presumably aiming to
prove tobacco is harmless.



This supposed tobacco connection discrediting Ames'
view that the threat posed by synthetic
insecticides is overstated.



In reality, Ames is not linked in any way to
tobacco companies and identifies smoking as a
prime cause of cancer. This attempt to discredit a
renowned scientist is ludicrous.



Having restated Ames' view that "The amount of
potentially carcinogenic pesticide residues
consumed in a year is less than the amount known
of rodent carcinogens in a cup of coffee." I am
bogusly accused of saying "DDT is harmless" and
that "a splash of ddt [sic] is safer than a
morning coffee". When unable to refute an argument
just make something up - a classic Lefty tactic.



Two Australian academics - economist John Quiggin,
an Australian Research Council Federation fellow
at the University of Queensland, and Tim Lambert,
a computer specialist at the University of New
South Wales - damn DDT and its advocates by
tenuously linking them to tobacco.



This is akin to the Left-promulgated smear that
anyone not fully subscribing to manmade climate
change theory is a denialist tool of "big oil".



Here's how it works, in the fevered,
right-wing-conspiracy-believing Lefty brain.



The tobacco companies dearly wanted to shift
attention away from the dangers of smoking onto
some other health issue. It was decided that DDT's
use in the fight against malaria was the perfect
distracter.



Paid lobbyists were dispatched to blame malaria's
rising death toll on under use of DDT,
simultaneously attacking the "science"
underpinning Silent Spring.



Everyone on the planet would be so occupied
arguing about DDT and malaria that the dangers of
smoking would be forgotten, and since DDT wasn't
as bad as it was made out to be, maybe the tobacco
health threat was also overstated.



To keep this issue alive the tobacco companies
orchestrated a successful fear-based campaign to
prevent a total worldwide DDT ban.



So really, the only reason we're having this DDT
discussion is through the efforts of the big
tobacco companies ­- without their financial
support, DDT, a product that should have been
banned, would have been banned.



According to this bizarre conspiracy theory any
person or organization supportive of even the
highly restricted use of DDT in the fight against
malaria is promoting smoking. Now since tobacco
companies are obviously evil, as is their product,
DDT advocates are evil, as is DDT.



An elegantly simple but grotesque smear links
Silent Spring critics to Lyndon LaRouche and
associated organizations.



It works like this. LaRouche and his various
fronts operate beyond the fringes of reason (you
can tick that as correct). A LaRouche front, 21st
Century Science & Technology, published an
anti-Silent Spring article by entomologist J.
Gordon Edwards. Now since LaRouche is nutty,
Edwards is also nutty, as are all Silent Spring
critics.



The thing is, Edwards' 5,300-word dissection of
Silent Spring - he wore himself out finding
errors, stopping less than half way through the
book - is largely valid.



That's why Carson supporters dismiss him as being
as nutty as LaRouche: it's a lot simpler to
discredit the messenger than it is to refute his
fact-based message.



Finally, for having published my essay, Quadrant
is accused of lacking "intellectual rigor". This
is pretty damn funny considering the source:
Crikey's less than rigorous Pure Poison blog.



In attacking DDT, Carson's acolytes are denying
science. DDT, unique in its ability to both kill
and repel mosquitoes, remains an effective tool in
the fight against malaria; properly used, as in
Eritrea and South Africa, for example, it saves
many lives.



DDT is not acutely toxic, having killed no one,
ever, unlike Bendiocarb, which is no longer used
as a surface spray in the U.S. because it is an
acute poisoning threat, especially to children -
no yelps of concern from the Left about this very
real threat to third-world youngsters.



DDT's chronic toxicity is low.



When used as part of a strictly controlled indoor
spraying program it is not known to pose a
significant threat to human health. If DDT is
eventually shown to be significantly harmful, its
benefits will have to be weighed against its
risks; if it does more harm than good, stop using
it.



The Left should call a halt to their ongoing war
on DDT and thereby on science; the collateral
damage - mostly third-world children, pregnant
women and the old, claimed by malaria - is
unacceptable.



http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2009/10/left-s-war-on-science





Regards



Bonz0



"I care about the environment (I grew up in a
solar house) and think there are a dozen good
reasons why we should burn less fossil fuels,
but.global warming is not one of them."

Nir Shaviv, Israeli physicist 2009
Seon Ferguson
2009-10-20 05:05:17 UTC
Permalink
Why don't you ever talk about how the right are trying to get evolution
banned from being taught in school?
Post by o*nob
October 19 2009
QUOTE: According to this bizarre conspiracy theory any person or
organization supportive of even the highly restricted use of DDT in the
fight against malaria is promoting smoking. Now since tobacco companies
are obviously evil, as is their product, DDT advocates are evil, as is
DDT.
QUOTE: it's a lot simpler to discredit the messenger than it is to refute
his fact-based message.
QUOTE: In attacking DDT, Carson's acolytes are denying science. DDT,
unique in its ability to both kill and repel mosquitoes, remains an
effective tool in the fight against malaria; properly used, as in Eritrea
and South Africa, for example, it saves many lives
QUOTE: The Left should call a halt to their ongoing war on DDT and thereby
on science
Religious adherents do not take criticisms of their holy scriptures
lightly.
Thus Leftists swiftly and viciously attacked my Quadrant Online essay
exposing flaws in the most holy of holy, Rachel Carson's Silent Spring.
The response is typical of the way dissent is dealt with by true believers
who do not tolerate any questioning of their faith.
There is much truth in Silent Spring but the book is often anything but
scientific.
Carson, nominally a scientist - marine biology - made her living writing.
To stimulate sales she added spice to her story by taking liberties with
"For the first time in the history of the world, every human being is now
subjected to contact with dangerous chemicals, from the moment of
conception until death. "
This outlandishly unscientific claim on its own discredits the whole
book - the natural environment is awash with dangerous chemicals.
As I noted, Carson further misled readers in suggesting that DDT was a
product of chemical weapons research.
Even worse, she describes DDT as a carcinogen of unsurpassed potency, able
to cause leukemia in a matter of months.
"Beck is lying! Quadrant is waging a war on science! "yelp the Left.
"Our beloved Rachel did not say that DDT causes leukemia; rather, she was
talking about the highly toxic benzene in the carrier solvent in which the
DDT was dissolved." This argument conveniently ignores that the book's
index references the horrific tale in question under "Leukemia, DDT and
case histories of".
My assertion that DDT poses little threat to health is attacked by
referencing research showing that "DDT and its breakdown product DDE may
be associated with adverse health outcomes".
Carrying that logic further, perhaps we should all start showering out on
the lawn under the hose to preclude a possibly fatal fall we may someday
suffer in the bathroom - statistically, a good possibility.
Research studies "proving" DDT causes genital defects in newborns are
paraded for the edification of those who already "know" how harmful DDT
is.
Unfortunately, the cited studies are unscientific, having been conducted
with a stringency approximately equal to that applied to high school
science experiments.
The acute toxicity of DDT is "confirmed" by citing the unfortunate death
of a child "who ingested one ounce of a 5% DDT:kerosene solution". The
cause of death is not specified, however, perhaps resulting from the
ingestion (or aspiration) of the poisonous kerosene. If DDT were proven to
be the causative factor this would be the one and only documented DDT
fatality.
From the fringe Left comes the absurd assertion that eminent cancer
researcher and developer of the Ames test for identifying possible
carcinogens, Bruce Ames, was involved "in secret testing by tobacco
companies" presumably aiming to prove tobacco is harmless.
This supposed tobacco connection discrediting Ames' view that the threat
posed by synthetic insecticides is overstated.
In reality, Ames is not linked in any way to tobacco companies and
identifies smoking as a prime cause of cancer. This attempt to discredit a
renowned scientist is ludicrous.
Having restated Ames' view that "The amount of potentially carcinogenic
pesticide residues consumed in a year is less than the amount known of
rodent carcinogens in a cup of coffee." I am bogusly accused of saying
"DDT is harmless" and that "a splash of ddt [sic] is safer than a morning
coffee". When unable to refute an argument just make something up - a
classic Lefty tactic.
Two Australian academics - economist John Quiggin, an Australian Research
Council Federation fellow at the University of Queensland, and Tim
Lambert, a computer specialist at the University of New South Wales - damn
DDT and its advocates by tenuously linking them to tobacco.
This is akin to the Left-promulgated smear that anyone not fully
subscribing to manmade climate change theory is a denialist tool of "big
oil".
Here's how it works, in the fevered, right-wing-conspiracy-believing Lefty
brain.
The tobacco companies dearly wanted to shift attention away from the
dangers of smoking onto some other health issue. It was decided that DDT's
use in the fight against malaria was the perfect distracter.
Paid lobbyists were dispatched to blame malaria's rising death toll on
under use of DDT, simultaneously attacking the "science" underpinning
Silent Spring.
Everyone on the planet would be so occupied arguing about DDT and malaria
that the dangers of smoking would be forgotten, and since DDT wasn't as
bad as it was made out to be, maybe the tobacco health threat was also
overstated.
To keep this issue alive the tobacco companies orchestrated a successful
fear-based campaign to prevent a total worldwide DDT ban.
So really, the only reason we're having this DDT discussion is through the
efforts of the big tobacco companies ­- without their financial support,
DDT, a product that should have been banned, would have been banned.
According to this bizarre conspiracy theory any person or organization
supportive of even the highly restricted use of DDT in the fight against
malaria is promoting smoking. Now since tobacco companies are obviously
evil, as is their product, DDT advocates are evil, as is DDT.
An elegantly simple but grotesque smear links Silent Spring critics to
Lyndon LaRouche and associated organizations.
It works like this. LaRouche and his various fronts operate beyond the
fringes of reason (you can tick that as correct). A LaRouche front, 21st
Century Science & Technology, published an anti-Silent Spring article by
entomologist J. Gordon Edwards. Now since LaRouche is nutty, Edwards is
also nutty, as are all Silent Spring critics.
The thing is, Edwards' 5,300-word dissection of Silent Spring - he wore
himself out finding errors, stopping less than half way through the book -
is largely valid.
it's a lot simpler to discredit the messenger than it is to refute his
fact-based message.
Finally, for having published my essay, Quadrant is accused of lacking
Crikey's less than rigorous Pure Poison blog.
In attacking DDT, Carson's acolytes are denying science. DDT, unique in
its ability to both kill and repel mosquitoes, remains an effective tool
in the fight against malaria; properly used, as in Eritrea and South
Africa, for example, it saves many lives.
DDT is not acutely toxic, having killed no one, ever, unlike Bendiocarb,
which is no longer used as a surface spray in the U.S. because it is an
acute poisoning threat, especially to children - no yelps of concern from
the Left about this very real threat to third-world youngsters.
DDT's chronic toxicity is low.
When used as part of a strictly controlled indoor spraying program it is
not known to pose a significant threat to human health. If DDT is
eventually shown to be significantly harmful, its benefits will have to be
weighed against its risks; if it does more harm than good, stop using it.
The Left should call a halt to their ongoing war on DDT and thereby on
science; the collateral damage - mostly third-world children, pregnant
women and the old, claimed by malaria - is unacceptable.
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2009/10/left-s-war-on-science
Regards
Bonz0
"I care about the environment (I grew up in a solar house) and think there
are a dozen good reasons why we should burn less fossil fuels, but.global
warming is not one of them."
Nir Shaviv, Israeli physicist 2009
0!n0b
2009-10-20 04:07:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Seon Ferguson
Why don't you ever talk about how the right are
trying to get evolution banned from being taught
in school?
Huh?
First I've heard of this.
Cite (reputable of course)?



Regards

Bonz0

"I care about the environment (I grew up in a
solar house) and think there are a dozen good
reasons why we should burn less fossil fuels,
but.global warming is not one of them."
Nir Shaviv, Israeli physicist 2009
Post by Seon Ferguson
Post by o*nob
October 19 2009
QUOTE: According to this bizarre conspiracy
theory any person or organization supportive of
even the highly restricted use of DDT in the
fight against malaria is promoting smoking. Now
since tobacco companies are obviously evil, as
is their product, DDT advocates are evil, as is
DDT.
QUOTE: it's a lot simpler to discredit the
messenger than it is to refute his fact-based
message.
QUOTE: In attacking DDT, Carson's acolytes are
denying science. DDT, unique in its ability to
both kill and repel mosquitoes, remains an
effective tool in the fight against malaria;
properly used, as in Eritrea and South Africa,
for example, it saves many lives
QUOTE: The Left should call a halt to their
ongoing war on DDT and thereby on science
Religious adherents do not take criticisms of
their holy scriptures lightly.
Thus Leftists swiftly and viciously attacked my
Quadrant Online essay exposing flaws in the
most holy of holy, Rachel Carson's Silent
Spring.
The response is typical of the way dissent is
dealt with by true believers who do not
tolerate any questioning of their faith.
There is much truth in Silent Spring but the
book is often anything but scientific.
Carson, nominally a scientist - marine
biology - made her living writing. To stimulate
sales she added spice to her story by taking
"For the first time in the history of the
world, every human being is now subjected to
contact with dangerous chemicals, from the
moment of conception until death. "
This outlandishly unscientific claim on its own
discredits the whole book - the natural
environment is awash with dangerous chemicals.
As I noted, Carson further misled readers in
suggesting that DDT was a product of chemical
weapons research.
Even worse, she describes DDT as a carcinogen
of unsurpassed potency, able to cause leukemia
in a matter of months.
"Beck is lying! Quadrant is waging a war on
science! "yelp the Left.
"Our beloved Rachel did not say that DDT causes
leukemia; rather, she was talking about the
highly toxic benzene in the carrier solvent in
which the DDT was dissolved." This argument
conveniently ignores that the book's index
references the horrific tale in question under
"Leukemia, DDT and case histories of".
My assertion that DDT poses little threat to
health is attacked by referencing research
showing that "DDT and its breakdown product DDE
may be associated with adverse health
outcomes".
Carrying that logic further, perhaps we should
all start showering out on the lawn under the
hose to preclude a possibly fatal fall we may
someday suffer in the bathroom - statistically,
a good possibility.
Research studies "proving" DDT causes genital
defects in newborns are paraded for the
edification of those who already "know" how
harmful DDT is.
Unfortunately, the cited studies are
unscientific, having been conducted with a
stringency approximately equal to that applied
to high school science experiments.
The acute toxicity of DDT is "confirmed" by
citing the unfortunate death of a child "who
ingested one ounce of a 5% DDT:kerosene
solution". The cause of death is not specified,
however, perhaps resulting from the ingestion
(or aspiration) of the poisonous kerosene. If
DDT were proven to be the causative factor this
would be the one and only documented DDT
fatality.
From the fringe Left comes the absurd assertion
that eminent cancer researcher and developer of
the Ames test for identifying possible
carcinogens, Bruce Ames, was involved "in
secret testing by tobacco companies" presumably
aiming to prove tobacco is harmless.
This supposed tobacco connection discrediting
Ames' view that the threat posed by synthetic
insecticides is overstated.
In reality, Ames is not linked in any way to
tobacco companies and identifies smoking as a
prime cause of cancer. This attempt to
discredit a renowned scientist is ludicrous.
Having restated Ames' view that "The amount of
potentially carcinogenic pesticide residues
consumed in a year is less than the amount
known of rodent carcinogens in a cup of
coffee." I am bogusly accused of saying "DDT is
harmless" and that "a splash of ddt [sic] is
safer than a morning coffee". When unable to
refute an argument just make something up - a
classic Lefty tactic.
Two Australian academics - economist John
Quiggin, an Australian Research Council
Federation fellow at the University of
Queensland, and Tim Lambert, a computer
specialist at the University of New South
Wales - damn DDT and its advocates by tenuously
linking them to tobacco.
This is akin to the Left-promulgated smear that
anyone not fully subscribing to manmade climate
change theory is a denialist tool of "big oil".
Here's how it works, in the fevered,
right-wing-conspiracy-believing Lefty brain.
The tobacco companies dearly wanted to shift
attention away from the dangers of smoking onto
some other health issue. It was decided that
DDT's use in the fight against malaria was the
perfect distracter.
Paid lobbyists were dispatched to blame
malaria's rising death toll on under use of
DDT, simultaneously attacking the "science"
underpinning Silent Spring.
Everyone on the planet would be so occupied
arguing about DDT and malaria that the dangers
of smoking would be forgotten, and since DDT
wasn't as bad as it was made out to be, maybe
the tobacco health threat was also overstated.
To keep this issue alive the tobacco companies
orchestrated a successful fear-based campaign
to prevent a total worldwide DDT ban.
So really, the only reason we're having this
DDT discussion is through the efforts of the
big tobacco companies ­- without their
financial support, DDT, a product that should
have been banned, would have been banned.
According to this bizarre conspiracy theory any
person or organization supportive of even the
highly restricted use of DDT in the fight
against malaria is promoting smoking. Now since
tobacco companies are obviously evil, as is
their product, DDT advocates are evil, as is
DDT.
An elegantly simple but grotesque smear links
Silent Spring critics to Lyndon LaRouche and
associated organizations.
It works like this. LaRouche and his various
fronts operate beyond the fringes of reason
(you can tick that as correct). A LaRouche
front, 21st Century Science & Technology,
published an anti-Silent Spring article by
entomologist J. Gordon Edwards. Now since
LaRouche is nutty, Edwards is also nutty, as
are all Silent Spring critics.
The thing is, Edwards' 5,300-word dissection of
Silent Spring - he wore himself out finding
errors, stopping less than half way through the
book - is largely valid.
That's why Carson supporters dismiss him as
being as nutty as LaRouche: it's a lot simpler
to discredit the messenger than it is to refute
his fact-based message.
Finally, for having published my essay,
Quadrant is accused of lacking "intellectual
rigor". This is pretty damn funny considering
the source: Crikey's less than rigorous Pure
Poison blog.
In attacking DDT, Carson's acolytes are denying
science. DDT, unique in its ability to both
kill and repel mosquitoes, remains an effective
tool in the fight against malaria; properly
used, as in Eritrea and South Africa, for
example, it saves many lives.
DDT is not acutely toxic, having killed no one,
ever, unlike Bendiocarb, which is no longer
used as a surface spray in the U.S. because it
is an acute poisoning threat, especially to
children - no yelps of concern from the Left
about this very real threat to third-world
youngsters.
DDT's chronic toxicity is low.
When used as part of a strictly controlled
indoor spraying program it is not known to pose
a significant threat to human health. If DDT is
eventually shown to be significantly harmful,
its benefits will have to be weighed against
its risks; if it does more harm than good, stop
using it.
The Left should call a halt to their ongoing
war on DDT and thereby on science; the
collateral damage - mostly third-world
children, pregnant women and the old, claimed
by malaria - is unacceptable.
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2009/10/left-s-war-on-science
Regards
Bonz0
"I care about the environment (I grew up in a
solar house) and think there are a dozen good
reasons why we should burn less fossil fuels,
but.global warming is not one of them."
Nir Shaviv, Israeli physicist 2009
Seon Ferguson
2009-10-20 06:32:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by 0!n0b
Post by Seon Ferguson
Why don't you ever talk about how the right are trying to get evolution
banned from being taught in school?
Huh?
First I've heard of this.
Cite (reputable of course)?
Only in America. Oh and please don't attack wikipedia. Click on the SOURCES
it provides.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation%E2%80%93evolution_controversy

In the aftermath of World War I, the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy
brought a surge of opposition to the idea of evolution, and following the
campaigning of William Jennings Bryan several states introduced legislation
prohibiting the teaching of evolution. By 1925, such legislation was being
considered in 15 states, and passed in some states, such as Tennessee.[20]
The American Civil Liberties Union offered to defend anyone who wanted to
bring a test case against one of these laws. John T. Scopes accepted, and he
confessed to teaching his Tennessee class evolution in defiance of the
Butler Act. The textbook in question was Hunter's Civic Biology (1914). The
trial was widely publicized by H. L. Mencken among others, and is commonly
referred to as the Scopes Monkey Trial. Scopes was convicted; however, the
widespread publicity galvanized proponents of evolution. When the case was
appealed to the Tennessee Supreme Court, the Court overturned the decision
on a technicality (the judge had assessed the minimum $100 fine instead of
allowing the jury to assess the fine).[21][22]

Although it overturned the conviction, the Court decided that the law was
not in violation of the Religious Preference provisions of the Tennessee
Constitution (section 3 of article 1), which stated that "that no preference
shall ever be given, by law, to any religious establishment or mode of
worship."[23] The Court, applying that state Constitutional language, held

We are not able to see how the prohibition of teaching the theory that
man has descended from a lower order of animals gives preference to any
religious establishment or mode of worship. So far as we know, there is no
religious establishment or organized body that has in its creed or
confession of faith any article denying or affirming such a
theory....Protestants, Catholics, and Jews are divided among themselves in
their beliefs, and that there is no unanimity amoung the members of any
religious establishment as to this subject. Belief or unbelief in the theory
of evolution is no more a characteristic of any religious establishment or
mode of worship than is belief or unbelief in the wisdom of the prohibition
laws. It would appear that members of the same churches quite generally
disagree as to these things.

...Furthermore, [the Butler Act] requires the teaching of nothing. It
only forbids the teaching of evolution of man from a lower order of
animals....As the law thus stands, while the theory of evolution of man may
not be taught in the schools of the State, nothing contrary to that theory
[such as Creationism] is required to be taught.[24]

...It is not necessary now to determine the exact scope of the Religious
Preference clause of the Constitution[24] ... Section 3 of article 1 is
binding alike on the Legislature and the school authorities. So far we are
clear that the Legislature has not crossed these constitutional limitations.
-Scopes v. State, 289 S.W. 363, 367 (Tenn. 1927).

The interpretation of the Establishment clause up to that time was that the
government could not establish a particular religion as the State religion.
The Tennessee Supreme Court's decision held in effect that the Butler Act
was constitutional under the state Constitution's Religious Preference
Clause, because the Act did not establish one religion as the "State
religion."[25] As a result of the holding, the teaching of evolution
remained illegal in Tennessee, and continued campaigning succeeded in
removing evolution from school textbooks throughout the United
States.[26][27]
[edit] Epperson v. Arkansas
Main article: Epperson v. Arkansas

In 1968, the United States Supreme Court invalidated a forty year old
Arkansas statute that prohibited the teaching of evolution in the public
schools. A Little Rock high school biology teacher, Susan Epperson, filed
suit charging the law violated the federal constitutional prohibition
against establishment of religion as set forth in the Establishment Clause.
The Little Rock Ministerial Association supported Epperson's challenge,
declaring, "to use the Bible to support an irrational and an archaic concept
of static and undeveloping creation is not only to misunderstand the meaning
of the Book of Genesis, but to do God and religion a disservice by making
both enemies of scientific advancement and academic freedom."[28] The Court
held that the United States Constitution prohibits a state from requiring,
in the words of the majority opinion, "that teaching and learning must be
tailored to the principles or prohibitions of any religious sect or
dogma."[29] But the Supreme Court decision also suggested that creationism
could be taught in addition to evolution.[30]
[edit] Daniel v. Waters
Main article: Daniel v. Waters

Daniel v. Waters was a 1975 legal case in which the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit struck down Tennessee's law regarding the
teaching of "equal time" of evolution and creationism in public school
science classes because it violated the Establishment clause of the US
Constitution. Following this ruling, creationism was stripped of overt
biblical references and renamed creation science, and several states passed
legislative acts requiring that this be given equal time with teaching of
evolution.
[edit] Creation Science
Main article: Creation Science

As biologists grew more and more confident in evolution as the central
defining principle of biology,[31] American membership in churches favoring
increasingly literal interpretations of scripture rose, with the Southern
Baptist Convention and Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod outpacing all other
denominations.[32] With growth, these churches became better equipped to
promulgate a creationist message, with their own colleges, schools,
publishing houses, and broadcast media.[33]

In 1961, the first major modern creationist book was published: Henry M.
Morris and John C. Whitcomb Jr.'s The Genesis Flood. Morris and Whitcomb
argued that creation was literally 6 days long, that humans lived
concurrently with dinosaurs, and that God created each 'kind' of life
individually.[34] On the strength of this, Morris became a popular speaker,
spreading anti-evolutionary ideas at fundamentalist churches, colleges, and
conferences.[35] Morris' Creation Science Research Center (CSRC) rushed
publication of biology text books that promoted creationism, and also
published other books such as Kelly Segrave's sensational Sons of God Return
that dealt with UFOlogy, flood geology, and demonology against Morris'
objections.[36] Ultimately, the CSRC broke up over a divide between
sensationalism and a more intellectual approach, and Morris founded the
Institute for Creation Research, which was promised to be controlled and
operated by scientists.[37] During this time, Morris and others who
supported flood geology adopted the terms scientific creationism and
creation science.[38] The flood geologists effectively co-opted "the generic
creationist label for their hyperliteralist views".[39]
[edit] Court cases
[edit] McLean v. Arkansas
Main article: McLean v. Arkansas

In 1982 another case in Arkansas ruled that the Arkansas "Balanced Treatment
for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act" was unconstitutional because
it violated the establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution. Much of the
transcript of the case was lost, including evidence from Francisco Ayala.
[edit] Edwards v. Aguillard
Main article: Edwards v. Aguillard

In the early 1980s, the Louisiana legislature passed a law titled the
"Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science in Public
School Instruction Act". The act did not require teaching either evolution
or creationism as such, but did require that when evolutionary science was
taught, creation science had to be taught as well. Creationists had lobbied
aggressively for the law, arguing that the act was about academic freedom
for teachers, an argument adopted by the state in support of the act. Lower
courts ruled that the State's actual purpose was to promote the religious
doctrine of creation science, but the State appealed to the Supreme Court.

In the similar case of McLean v. Arkansas (see above) the federal trial
court had also decided against creationism. Mclean v. Arkansas however was
not appealed to the federal Circuit Court of Appeals, creationists instead
thinking that they had better chances with Edwards v. Aguillard. In 1987 the
Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Louisiana act was
unconstitutional, because the law was specifically intended to advance a
particular religion. At the same time, however, it stated in its opinion
that "teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of
humankind to school children might be validly done with the clear secular
intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction," leaving open
the door for a handful of proponents of creation science to evolve their
arguments into the iteration of creationism that came to be known as
intelligent design.[40]
[edit] Intelligent Design
The Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture used
banners based on "The Creation of Adam" from the Sistine Chapel. Later it
used a less religious image, then was renamed the Center for Science and
Culture.[41]
Main article: Intelligent design
See also: Neo-creationism, Intelligent design movement, Teach the
Controversy, and Critical Analysis of Evolution

In response to Edwards v. Aguillard, the Neo-Creationist intelligent design
movement was formed around the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and
Culture. Its goal is to restate creationism in terms more likely to be well
received by the public, policy makers, educators, and the scientific
community, and makes the claim that "certain features of the universe and of
living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected
process such as natural selection."[42] It has been viewed as a "scientific"
approach to creationism by creationists, but is widely rejected as
unscientific by the science community - primarily because intelligent design
cannot be tested and rejected like scientific hypotheses (see for example,
list of scientific societies rejecting intelligent design).
[edit] Controversy in recent times
See also: Politics of creationism and Intelligent design in politics

The controversy continues to this day, with the mainstream scientific
consensus on the origins and evolution of life challenged by creationist
organizations and religious groups who desire to uphold some form of
creationism (usually young earth creationism, creation science, old earth
creationism or intelligent design) as an alternative. Most of these groups
are explicitly Christian, and more than one sees the debate as part of the
Christian mandate to evangelize.[43] Some see science and religion as being
diametrically opposed views which cannot be reconciled. More accommodating
viewpoints, held by many mainstream churches and many scientists, consider
science and religion to be separate categories of thought, which ask
fundamentally different questions about reality and posit different avenues
for investigating it.[44] Public opinion in regards to the concepts of
evolution, creationism, and intelligent design is fluctuating.

More recently, the Intelligent Design movement has taken an anti-evolution
position which avoids any direct appeal to religion. Scientists argue that
Intelligent design does not represent any research program within the
mainstream scientific community, and is essentially creationism.[45] Its
leading proponent, the Discovery Institute, made widely publicised claims
that it was a new science, though the only paper arguing for it published in
a scientific journal was accepted in questionable circumstances and quickly
disavowed in the Sternberg peer review controversy, with the Biological
Society of Washington stating that it did not meet the journal's scientific
standards, was a "significant departure" from the journal's normal subject
area and was published at the former editor's sole discretion, "contrary to
typical editorial practices".[46] President Bush commented endorsing the
teaching of Intelligent design alongside evolution "I felt like both sides
ought to be properly taught ... so people can understand what the debate is
about."[47]
[edit] Kansas evolution hearings
Main article: Kansas evolution hearings

In the push by intelligent design advocates to introduce intelligent design
in public school science classrooms, the hub of the intelligent design
movement, the Discovery Institute, arranged to conduct hearings to review
the evidence for evolution in the light of its Critical Analysis of
Evolution lesson plans. The Kansas Evolution Hearings were a series of
hearings held in Topeka, Kansas 5 May to 12 May 2005. The Kansas State Board
of Education eventually adopted the institute's Critical Analysis of
Evolution lesson plans over objections of the State Board Science Hearing
Committee, and electioneering on behalf of conservative Republican
candidates for the Board.[48] On 1 August 2006, 4 of the 6 conservative
Republicans who approved the Critical Analysis of Evolution classroom
standards lost their seats in a primary election. The moderate Republican
and Democrats gaining seats vowed to overturn the 2005 school science
standards and adopt those recommended by a State Board Science Hearing
Committee that were rejected by the previous board,[49] and on 13 February
2007, the Board voted 6 to 4 to reject the amended science standards enacted
in 2005. The definition of science was once again limited to "the search for
natural explanations for what is observed in the universe."[50]
[edit] The Dover Trial
Main article: Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District

Following the Edwards v. Aguillard decision by the Supreme Court of the
United States, in which the Court held that a Louisiana law requiring that
creation science be taught in public schools whenever evolution was taught
was unconstitutional, because the law was specifically intended to advance a
particular religion, creationists renewed their efforts to introduce
creationism into public school science classes. This effort resulted in
intelligent design, which sought to avoid legal prohibitions by leaving the
source of creation an unnamed and undefined intelligent designer, as opposed
to God.[51] This ultimately resulted in the "Dover Trial," Kitzmiller v.
Dover Area School District, which went to trial on 26 September 2005 and was
decided on 20 December 2005 in favor of the plaintiffs, who charged that a
mandate that intelligent design be taught in public school science
classrooms was an unconstitutional establishment of religion. The 139 page
opinion of Kitzmiller v. Dover held that intelligent design was not a
subject of legitimate scientific research, and that it "cannot uncouple
itself from its creationist, and hence religious, antecedents".[52]
[edit] Viewpoints
[edit] Young Earth creationism
Main article: Young Earth creationism
See also: Creation science and Flood geology

Young Earth creationism is the belief that the Earth was created by God
within the last 10,000 years, literally as described in Genesis, within the
approximate timeframe of biblical genealogies (detailed for example in the
Ussher chronology). Young Earth creationists often believe that the Universe
has a similar age as the Earth. Creationist cosmologies are attempts by some
creationist thinkers to give the universe an age consistent with the Ussher
chronology and other Young-Earth timeframes. This belief generally has a
basis in a literal and inerrant interpretation of the Bible.
[edit] Old Earth creationism
Main article: Old Earth creationism
See also: Gap creationism, Day-Age Creationism, and Progressive creationism

Old Earth creationism holds that the physical universe was created by God,
but that the creation event of Genesis is not to be taken strictly
literally. This group generally believes that the age of the Universe and
the age of the Earth are as described by astronomers and geologists, but
that details of the evolutionary theory are questionable. Old Earth
creationists interpret the creation accounts of Genesis in a number of ways,
that each differ from the six, consecutive, 24-hour day creation of the
literalist Young Earth Creationist view.
[edit] Neo-Creationism
Main article: Neo-Creationism
See also: Intelligent design

Neo-Creationists intentionally distance themselves from other forms of
creationism, preferring to be known as wholly separate from creationism as a
philosophy. Their goal is to restate creationism in terms more likely to be
well received by the public, education policy makers and the scientific
community. It aims to re-frame the debate over the origins of life in
non-religious terms and without appeals to scripture, and to bring the
debate before the public. Neo-creationists may be either Young Earth or Old
Earth Creationists, and hold a range of underlying theological viewpoints
(e.g. on the interpretation of the Bible). Neo-Creationism currently exists
in the form of the intelligent design movement, which has a 'big tent'
strategy making it inclusive of many Young Earth Creationists (such as Paul
Nelson and Percival Davis).
[edit] Theistic evolution
Main article: Theistic evolution
See also: Naturalism (philosophy), Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church,
and Clergy Letter Project

Theistic evolution is the general view that, instead of faith being in
opposition to biological evolution, some or all classical religious
teachings about God and creation are compatible with some or all of modern
scientific theory, including, specifically, evolution. It generally views
evolution as a tool used by a creator god, who is both the first cause and
immanent sustainer/upholder of the universe; it is therefore well accepted
by people of strong theistic (as opposed to deistic) convictions. Theistic
evolution can synthesize with the day-age interpretation of the Genesis
creation account; however most adherents consider that the first chapters of
Genesis should not be interpreted as a "literal" description, but rather as
a literary framework or allegory.

This position does not generally exclude the viewpoint of methodological
naturalism, a long standing convention of the scientific method in science.

Theistic evolutionists have frequently been prominent in opposing
creationism (including intelligent design). Notable examples have been
biologist Kenneth R. Miller and theologian John Haught (both Catholics), who
testified for the plaintiffs in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.
Another example is the Clergy Letter Project, an organization that has
created and maintains a statement signed by American Christian clergy of
different denominations rejecting creationism, with specific reference to
points raised by intelligent design proponents. Theistic evolutionists have
also been active in Citizens Alliances for Science that oppose the
introduction of creationism into public school science classes (one example
being evangelical Christian geologist Keith B. Miller, who is a prominent
board member of Kansas Citizens for Science).
[edit] Naturalistic evolution

Naturalistic evolution is the position of acceptance of biological evolution
and of metaphysical naturalism (and thus rejection of theism and theistic
evolution). A prominent proponent of this viewpoint is British evolutionary
biologist Richard Dawkins.
Wiki letter w.svg This section requires expansion.
[edit] Arguments relating to the definition and limits of science

Critiques such as those based on the distinction between theory and fact are
often leveled against unifying concepts within scientific disciplines.
Principles such as uniformitarianism, Occam's Razor or parsimony, and the
Copernican principle are claimed to be the result of a bias within science
toward philosophical naturalism, which is equated by many creationists with
atheism.[53] In countering this claim, philosophers of science use the term
methodological naturalism to refer to the long standing convention in
science of the scientific method. The methodological assumption is that
observable events in nature are explained only by natural causes, without
assuming the existence or non-existence of the supernatural, and therefore
supernatural explanations for such events are outside the realm of
science.[54] Creationists claim that supernatural explanations should not be
excluded and that scientific work is paradigmatically close-minded.[55]

Because modern science tries to rely on the minimization of a priori
assumptions, error, and subjectivity, as well as on avoidance of Baconian
idols, it remains neutral on subjective subjects such as religion or
morality.[56] Mainstream proponents accuse the creationists of conflating
the two in a form of pseudoscience.[57]
[edit] Definitions

Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and
for all practical purposes is accepted as "true." Truth in science, however,
is never final, and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even
discarded tomorrow. Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural
world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are
verified, it becomes more probable that the hypothesis is correct. If the
deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis can be abandoned or
modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and
explanations. Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the
natural world behaves under stated circumstances. Theory: In science, a
well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can
incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

- National Academy of Sciences, Science and Creationism[58]

[edit] Limitations of the scientific endeavor

In science, explanations are limited to those based on observations and
experiments that can be substantiated by other scientists. Explanations that
cannot be based on empirical evidence are not a part of science.

- National Academy of Sciences, Science and Creationism[58]

Wiki letter w.svg This section requires expansion.
[edit] Theory vs. fact
Main article: Evolution as theory and fact

The argument that evolution is a theory, not a fact, has often been made
against the exclusive teaching of evolution.[59] The argument is related to
a common misconception about the technical meaning of "theory" that is used
by scientists. In common usage, "theory" often refers to conjectures,
hypotheses, and unproven assumptions. However, in science, "theory" usually
means "a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of
principles offered to explain phenomena."[60]

Exploring this issue, paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould wrote:[61]

Evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are
different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts
are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and
interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories
to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but
apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And
humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's
proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

[edit] Falsifiability

Philosopher of science Karl R. Popper set out the concept of falsifiability
as a way to distinguish science and pseudoscience: Testable theories are
scientific, but those that are untestable are not.[62] However, in Unended
Quest, Popper declared "I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not
a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research programme, a
possible framework for testable scientific theories," while pointing out it
had "scientific character".[63]

In what one sociologist derisively called "Popper-chopping,"[64] opponents
of evolution seized upon Popper's definition to claim evolution was not a
science, and claimed creationism was an equally valid metaphysical research
program.[65] For example, Duane Gish, a leading Creationist proponent, wrote
in a letter to Discover magazine (July 1981): "Stephen Jay Gould states that
creationists claim creation is a scientific theory. While many Creationists
claim creation is a scientific theory other Creationists have stated that
neither creation nor evolution is a scientific theory (and each is equally
religious)."[66]

Popper responded to news that his conclusions were being used by
anti-evolutionary forces by affirming that evolutionary theories regarding
the origins of life on earth were scientific because "their hypotheses can
in many cases be tested."[67] However, creationists claimed that a key
evolutionary concept, that all life on Earth is descended from a single
common ancestor, was not mentioned as testable by Popper, and claimed it
never would be.[68]

In fact, Popper wrote admiringly of the value of Darwin's theory.[69] Only a
few years later, Popper changed his mind, and later wrote, "I still believe
that natural selection works in this way as a research programme.
Nevertheless, I have changed my mind about the testability and logical
status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an
opportunity to make a recantation".[70]

Debate among some scientists and philosophers of science on the
applicability of falsifiability in science continues.[71] However, simple
falsifiability tests for common descent have been offered by some
scientists: For instance, biologist and prominent critic of creationism
Richard Dawkins and J.B.S. Haldane both pointed out that if fossil rabbits
were found in the Precambrian era, a time before most similarly complex
lifeforms had evolved, "that would completely blow evolution out of the
water."[72][73]

Falsifiability has also caused problems for creationists: In his 1982
decision McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, Judge William R. Overton
used falsifiability as one basis for his ruling against the teaching of
creation science in the public schools, ultimately declaring it "simply not
science."[74]
[edit] Conflation of science and religion

See also: Objection to evolution that it is a religion

[edit] Appeal to consequences

See also: Objection to evolution's moral implications

A number of creationists have blurred the boundaries between their disputes
over the truth of the underlying facts, and explanatory theories, of
evolution, with their purported philosophical and moral consequences. This
type of argument is known as an appeal to consequences, and is a logical
fallacy. Examples of these arguments include those of prominent creationists
such as Ken Ham[75] and Henry M. Morris.[76]
[edit] Disputes relating to science

Many creationists strongly oppose certain scientific theories in a number of
ways, including opposition to specific applications of scientific processes,
accusations of bias within the scientific community,[77] and claims that
discussions within the scientific community reveal or imply a crisis. In
response to perceived crises in modern science, creationists claim to have
an alternative, typically based on faith, creation science, and/or
intelligent design. The scientific community has responded by pointing out
that their conversations are frequently misrepresented (e.g. by quote
mining) in order to create the impression of a deeper controversy or crisis,
and that the creationists' alternatives are generally pseudoscientific.
[edit] Biology
A phylogenetic tree based on rRNA genes.


Disputes relating to evolutionary biology are central to the controversy
between Creationists and the scientific community. The aspects of
evolutionary biology disputed include common descent (and particularly human
evolution from common ancestors with other members of the Great Apes),
macroevolution, and the existence of transitional fossils.
[edit] Common descent
Main article: Common descent
See also: Evidence of common descent and Tree of life (science)

[The] Discovery [Institute] presents common descent as controversial
exclusively within the animal kingdom, as it focuses on embryology, anatomy,
and the fossil record to raise questions about them. In the real world of
science, common descent of animals is completely noncontroversial; any
controversy resides in the microbial world. There, researchers argued over a
variety of topics, starting with the very beginning, namely the relationship
among the three main branches of life.
-John Timmer, Evolution: what's the real controversy?[78]

A group of organisms is said to have common descent if they have a common
ancestor. A theory of universal common descent based on evolutionary
principles was proposed by Charles Darwin and is now generally accepted by
biologists. The last universal common ancestor, that is, the most recent
common ancestor of all currently living organisms, is believed to have
appeared about 3.9 billion years ago.

With a few exceptions (e.g. Michael Behe), the vast majority of Creationists
reject this theory.[79][80][81]

Evidence of common descent includes evidence from fossil records,
comparative anatomy, geographical distribution of species, comparative
physiology and comparative biochemistry.
[edit] Human evolution
Search Wikibooks Wikibooks has a book on the topic of
Introduction to Paleoanthropology
Main article: Human evolution
See also: Paleoanthropology and Adam and Eve

Human evolution is the study of the biological evolution of humans as a
distinct species from its common ancestors with other animals. Analysis of
fossil evidence and genetic distance are two of the means by which
scientists understand this evolutionary history.

Fossil evidence suggests that humans' earliest hominoid ancestors may have
split from other primates as early as the late Oligocene, circa 26-24 Ma,
and that by the early Miocene, the adaptive radiation of many different
hominoid forms was well underway.[82] Evidence from the molecular dating of
genetic differences indicates that the gibbon lineage (family Hylobatidae)
diverged between 18 and 12 Ma, and the orangutan lineage (subfamily
Ponginae) diverged about 12 Ma. While there is no fossil evidence thus far
clearly documenting the early ancestry of gibbons, fossil proto-orangutans
may be represented by Sivapithecus from India and Griphopithecus from
Turkey, dated to around 10 Ma. Molecular evidence further suggests that
between 8 and 4 Ma, first the gorillas, and then the chimpanzee (genus Pan)
split from the line leading to the humans.[83] We have no fossil record of
this divergence, but distinctively hominid fossils have been found dating to
3.2 Ma (see Lucy) and possibly even earlier, at 6 or 7 Ma (see Toumaï).[84]
Comparisons of chimpanzee and human DNA show the two are approximately 98.4
percent identical, and are taken as strong evidence of recent common
ancestry.[85] Today, only one distinct human species survives, but many
earlier species have been found in the fossil record, including Homo
erectus, Homo habilis, and Homo neanderthalensis.

Creationists dispute there is evidence of shared ancestry in the fossil
evidence, and argue either that these are misassigned ape fossils (e.g. that
Java man was a gibbon[86]) or too similar to modern humans to designate them
as distinct or transitional forms.[87] However Creationists frequently
disagree where the dividing lines would be.[88] Creation myths (such as the
Book of Genesis) frequently posit a first man (Adam, in the case of Genesis)
as an alternative viewpoint to the scientific account.

Creationists also dispute science's interpretation of genetic evidence in
the study of human evolution. They argue that it is a "dubious assumption"
that genetic similarities between various animals imply a common ancestral
relationship, and that scientists are coming to this interpretation only
because they have preconceived notions that such shared relationships exist.
Creationists also argue that genetic mutations are strong evidence against
evolutionary theory because the mutations required for major changes to
occur would almost certainly be detrimental.[28]
[edit] Macroevolution
Main article: Macroevolution
See also: Speciation

Many creationists now accept the possibilities of microevolution within
"kinds" but refuse to accept and have long argued against the possibility of
macroevolution. Macroevolution is defined by the scientific community to be
evolution that occurs at or above the level of species. Under this
definition, macroevolution can be considered to be a fact, as evidenced by
observed instances of speciation. Creationists however tend to apply a more
restrictive, if vaguer, definition of macroevolution, often relating to the
emergence of new body forms or organs. The scientific community considers
that there is strong evidence for even such more restrictive definitions,
but the evidence for this is more complex.

Recent arguments against (such restrictive definitions of) macroevolution
include the intelligent design arguments of irreducible complexity and
specified complexity. However, neither argument has been accepted for
publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and both arguments have
been rejected by the scientific community as pseudoscience.
Wiki letter w.svg This section requires expansion.
[edit] Transitional fossils
Main article: Transitional fossil
See also: List of transitional fossils, Bird evolution, and Evolution of the
horse

It is commonly stated by critics of evolution that there are no known
transitional fossils.[89][90] This position is based on a misunderstanding
of the nature of what represents a transitional feature. A common
creationist argument is that no fossils are found with partially functional
features. It is plausible, however, that a complex feature with one function
can adapt a wholly different function through evolution. The precursor to,
for example, a wing, might originally have only been meant for gliding,
trapping flying prey, and/or mating display. Nowadays, wings can still have
all of these functions, but they are also used in active flight.
Reconstruction of Ambulocetus natans

As another example, Alan Haywood stated in Creation and Evolution that
"Darwinists rarely mention the whale because it presents them with one of
their most insoluble problems. They believe that somehow a whale must have
evolved from an ordinary land-dwelling animal, which took to the sea and
lost its legs ... A land mammal that was in the process of becoming a whale
would fall between two stools-it would not be fitted for life on land or at
sea, and would have no hope for survival."[91] The evolution of whales has
however been documented in considerable detail, with Ambulocetus, described
as looking like a three-metre long mammalian crocodile, as one of the
transitional fossils.

Although transitional fossils elucidate the evolutionary transition of one
life-form to another, they only exemplify snapshots of this process. Due to
the special circumstances required for preservation of living beings, only a
very small percentage of all life-forms that ever have existed can be
expected to be discovered. Thus, the transition itself can only be
illustrated and corroborated by transitional fossils, but it will never be
known in detail. However, progressing research and discovery managed to fill
in several gaps and continues to do so. Critics of evolution often cite this
argument as being a convenient way to explain off the lack of 'snapshot'
fossils that show crucial steps between species.

The theory of punctuated equilibrium developed by Stephen Jay Gould and
Niles Eldredge is often mistakenly drawn into the discussion of transitional
fossils. This theory, however, pertains only to well-documented transitions
within taxa or between closely related taxa over a geologically short period
of time. These transitions, usually traceable in the same geological
outcrop, often show small jumps in morphology between periods of
morphological stability. To explain these jumps, Gould and Eldredge
envisaged comparatively long periods of genetic stability separated by
periods of rapid evolution. For example the change from a creature the size
of a mouse, to one the size of an elephant, could be accomplished over
60,000 years, with a rate of change too small to be noticed over any human
lifetime. 60,000 years is too small a gap to be identified or identifiable
in the fossil record.[92]
[edit] Geology
Main article: Flood Geology
See also: Creation geophysics, Geochronology, and Age of the Earth

Many believers in Young Earth Creationism - a position held by the majority
of proponents of Flood Geology - accept biblical chronogenealogies (such as
the Ussher chronology which in turn is based on the Masoretic version of the
Genealogies of Genesis).[93][94] They believe that God created the universe
approximately 6000 years ago, in the space of six days. Much of creation
geology is devoted to debunking the dating methods used in anthropology,
geology, and planetary science that give ages in conflict with the young
Earth idea. In particular, creationists dispute the reliability of
radiometric dating and isochron analysis, both of which are central to
mainstream geological theories of the age of the Earth. They usually dispute
these methods based on uncertainties concerning initial concentrations of
individually considered species and the associated measurement uncertainties
caused by diffusion of the parent and daughter isotopes. However, a full
critique of the entire parameter-fitting analysis, which relies on dozens of
radionuclei parent and daughter pairs, has not been done by creationists
hoping to cast doubt on the technique.

The consensus of professional scientific organisations worldwide is that no
scientific evidence contradicts the age of approximately 4.5 billion
years.[95] Young Earth creationists reject these ages on the grounds of what
they regard as being tenuous and untestable assumptions in the methodology.
Apparently inconsistent radiometric dates are often quoted to cast doubt on
the utility and accuracy of the method. Mainstream proponents who get
involved in this debate point out that dating methods only rely on the
assumptions that the physical laws governing radioactive decay have not been
violated since the sample was formed (harking back to Lyell's doctrine of
uniformitarianism). They also point out that the "problems" that
creationists publicly mentioned can be shown to either not be problems at
all, are issues with known contamination, or simply the result of
incorrectly evaluating legitimate data.
[edit] Other sciences
[edit] Cosmology
See also: Age of the universe

Whilst Young Earth Creationists believe that the Universe was created
approximately 6000 years ago, the current scientific consensus is that it is
about 13.7 billion years old. The recent science of nucleocosmochronology is
extending the approaches used for Carbon-14 dating to the dating of
astronomical features. For example based upon this emerging science, the
Galactic thin disk of the Milky Way galaxy is estimated to have been formed
8.3 ± 1.8 billion years ago.[96]

Many other creationists, including Old Earth Creationists, do not
necessarily dispute these figures.
[edit] Nuclear physics
See also: radiometric dating

Creationists point to experiments they have performed, which they claim
demonstrate that 1.5 billion years of nuclear decay took place over a short
period of time, from which they infer that "billion-fold speed-ups of
nuclear decay" have occurred, a massive violation of the principle that
radioisotope decay rates are constant, a core principle underlying nuclear
physics generally, and radiometric dating in particular.[97]

The scientific community points to numerous flaws in these experiments, to
the fact that their results have not been accepted for publication by any
peer-reviewed scientific journal, and to the fact that the creationist
scientists conducting them were untrained in experimental
geochronology.[98][99]

In refutation of young-Earth claims of inconstant decay rates affecting the
reliability of radiometric dating, Roger C. Wiens, a physicist specialising
in isotope dating states:

There are only three quite technical instances where a half-life
changes, and these do not affect the dating methods [under
discussion][100]":

1. Only one technical exception occurs under terrestrial conditions,
and this is not for an isotope used for dating. ... The
artificially-produced isotope, beryllium-7 has been shown to change by up to
1.5%, depending on its chemical environment. ... [H]eavier atoms are even
less subject to these minute changes, so the dates of rocks made by
electron-capture decays would only be off by at most a few hundredths of a
percent.
2. ... Another case is material inside of stars, which is in a plasma
state where electrons are not bound to atoms. In the extremely hot stellar
environment, a completely different kind of decay can occur. 'Bound-state
beta decay' occurs when the nucleus emits an electron into a bound
electronic state close to the nucleus. ... All normal matter, such as
everything on Earth, the Moon, meteorites, etc. has electrons in normal
positions, so these instances never apply to rocks, or anything colder than
several hundred thousand degrees. ...
3. The last case also involves very fast-moving matter. It has been
demonstrated by atomic clocks in very fast spacecraft. These atomic clocks
slow down very slightly (only a second or so per year) as predicted by
Einstein's theory of relativity. No rocks in our solar system are going fast
enough to make a noticeable change in their dates. ...

- Roger C. Wiens, Radiometric Dating, A Christian Perspective[101]

[edit] Misrepresentations of science
[edit] Quote mining
Main article: Quote mining

As a means to criticise mainstream science, creationists have been known to
quote, at length, scientists who ostensibly support the mainstream theories,
but appear to acknowledge criticisms similar to those of creationists.[102]
However, almost universally these have been shown to be quote mines that do
not accurately reflect the evidence for evolution or the mainstream
scientific community's opinion of it, or highly out-of-date.[103][104] Many
of the same quotes used by creationists have appeared so frequently in
Internet discussions due to the availability of cut and paste functions,
that the TalkOrigins Archive has created "The Quote Mine Project" for quick
reference to the original context of these quotations.[103]
[edit] Public policy issues
[edit] Science education
Main article: Creation and evolution in public education
See also: Teach the Controversy

Creationists promote that evolution is a theory in crisis[105][106] with
scientists criticizing evolution[107] and claim that fairness and equal time
requires educating students about the alleged scientific controversy.

Opponents, being the overwhelming majority of the scientific community and
science education organizations,[108] reply that there is in fact no
scientific controversy and that the controversy exists solely in terms of
religion and politics.[105][107] The American Association for the
Advancement of Science and other science and education professional
organizations say that Teach the Controversy proponents seek to undermine
the teaching of evolution[105][109] while promoting intelligent
design,[110][111][112] and to advance an education policy for US public
schools that introduces creationist explanations for the origin of life to
public-school science curricula.[113][114] This viewpoint was supported by
the December 2005 ruling in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
trial.[114]

George Mason University Biology Department introduced a course on the
creation/evolution controversy, and apparently as students learn more about
biology, they find objections to evolution less convincing, suggesting that
"teaching the controversy" rightly as a separate elective course on
philosophy or history of science, or "politics of science and religion,"
would undermine creationists' criticisms, and that the scientific community's
resistance to this approach was bad public relations.[115]

On March 27, 2009, the Texas Board of Education, by a vote of 13 to 2, voted
that at least in Texas, textbooks must teach intelligent design alongside
evolution, and question the validity of the fossil record. Don McLeroy, a
dentist and chair of the board, said, "I think the new standards are
wonderful ... dogmatism about evolution" has sapped "America's scientific
soul." According to Science magazine, "Because Texas is the second-largest
textbook market in the United States, publishers have a strong incentive to
be certified by the board as 'conforming 100% to the state's
standards'."[116]
[edit] Freedom of speech

Creationists have claimed that preventing them from teaching Creationism
violates their right of Freedom of speech. However court cases (such as
Webster v. New Lenox School District and Bishop v. Aronov) have upheld
school districts' and universities' right to restrict teaching to a
specified curriculum.
[edit] Issues relating to religion
See also: Relationship between religion and science and Evolution and the
Roman Catholic Church
[edit] Theological arguments
See also: Allegorical interpretations of Genesis and Evolutionary argument
against naturalism
Wiki letter w.svg This section requires expansion.
[edit] Religion and historical scientists

Creationists often argue that Christianity and literal belief in the Bible
are either foundationally significant or directly responsible for scientific
progress.[117] To that end, Institute for Creation Research founder Henry M.
Morris has enumerated scientists such as astronomer and philosopher Galileo,
mathematician and theoretical physicist James Clerk Maxwell, mathematician
and philosopher Blaise Pascal, geneticist monk Gregor Mendel, and Isaac
Newton as believers in a biblical creation narrative.[118]

This argument usually involves scientists either who were no longer alive
when evolution was proposed or whose field of study didn't include
evolution. The argument is generally rejected as specious by those who
oppose creationism.[119]

Many of the scientists in question did some early work on the mechanisms of
evolution, e.g., the Modern evolutionary synthesis combines Darwin's
Evolution with Mendel's theories of inheritance and genetics. Though
biological evolution of some sort had become the primary mode of discussing
speciation within science by the late-19th century, it was not until the
mid-20th century that evolutionary theories stabilized into the modern
synthesis. Some of the historical scientists marshalled by creationists were
dealing with quite different issues than any are engaged with today: Louis
Pasteur, for example, opposed the theory of spontaneous generation with
biogenesis, an advocacy some creationists describe as a critique on chemical
evolution and abiogenesis. Pasteur accepted that some form of evolution had
occurred and that the Earth was millions of years old.[120]

The relationship between science and religion was not portrayed in
antagonistic terms until the late-19th century, and even then there have
been many examples of the two being reconcilable for evolutionary
scientists.[121] Many historical scientists wrote books explaining how
pursuit of science was seen by them as fulfillment of spiritual duty in line
with their religious beliefs. Even so, such professions of faith were not
insurance against dogmatic opposition by certain religious people.

Some extensions to this creationist argument have included the incorrect
suggestions that Einstein's deism was a tacit endorsement of creationism or
that Charles Darwin converted on his deathbed and recanted evolutionary
theory.
[edit] Forums for the controversy
[edit] Debates

Many creationists and scientists engage in frequent public debates regarding
the origin of human life, hosted by a variety of institutions. However, some
scientists disagree with this tactic, arguing that by openly debating
supporters of supernatural origin explanations (creationism and intelligent
design), scientists are lending credibility and unwarranted publicity to
creationists, which could foster an inaccurate public perception and obscure
the factual merits of the debate.[122] For example, in May 2004 Dr. Michael
Shermer debated creationist Kent Hovind in front of a predominantly
creationist audience. In Shermer's online reflection while he was explaining
that he won the debate with intellectual and scientific evidence he felt it
was "not an intellectual exercise," but rather it was "an emotional drama",
with scientists arguing from "an impregnable fortress of evidence that
converges to an unmistakable conclusion", whilst for creationists it is "a
spiritual war".[123] While receiving positive responses from creationist
observers, Shermer concluded "Unless there is a subject that is truly
debatable (evolution v. creation is not), with a format that is fair, in a
forum that is balanced, it only serves to belittle both the magisterium of
science and the magisterium of religion."[123] (see: scientific method).
Others, like evolutionary biologist Massimo Pigliucci, have debated Hovind,
and have expressed surprise to hear Hovind try "to convince the audience
that evolutionists believe humans came from rocks" and at Hovind's assertion
that biologists believe humans "evolved from bananas."[124]

Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education, a non-profit
organization dedicated to defending the teaching of evolution in the public
schools, claimed debates are not the sort of arena to promote science to
creationists.[123] Scott says that "Evolution is not on trial in the world
of science," and "the topic of the discussion should not be the scientific
legitimacy of evolution" but rather should be on the lack of evidence in
creationism. Similarly, Stephen Jay Gould took a public stance against
appearing to give legitimacy to creationism by debating its proponents. He
noted during a Caltech lecture in 1985:[125]
" Debate is an art form. It is about the winning of arguments. It is not
about the discovery of truth. There are certain rules and procedures to
debate that really have nothing to do with establishing fact - which
creationists have mastered. Some of those rules are: never say anything
positive about your own position because it can be attacked, but chip away
at what appear to be the weaknesses in your opponent's position. They are
good at that. I don't think I could beat the creationists at debate. I can
tie them. But in courtrooms they are terrible, because in courtrooms you
cannot give speeches. In a courtroom you have to answer direct questions
about the positive status of your belief. We destroyed them in Arkansas. On
the second day of the two-week trial we had our victory party! "
[edit] Political lobbying
See also: Politics of creationism, Kansas evolution hearings, Santorum
Amendment, and List of scientific societies rejecting intelligent design

A wide range of organisations, on both sides of the controversy, are
involved in lobbying in an attempt to influence political decisions relating
to the teaching of evolution, at a number of levels. These include the
Discovery Institute, the National Center for Science Education, the National
Science Teachers Association, state Citizens Alliances for Science, and
numerous national science associations and state Academies of Science.[126]
Wiki letter w.svg This section requires expansion.
[edit] In the media

The controversy has been discussed in numerous newspaper articles, reports,
op-eds and letters to the editor, as well as a number of radio and
television programmes (including the PBS series, Evolution and Coral Ridge
Ministries' Darwin's Deadly Legacy). This has led some commentators to
express a concern at what they see as a highly inaccurate and biased
understanding of evolution among the general public. Pulitzer Prize-winning
journalist and writer Edward Humes states:[127]
" There are really two theories of evolution. There is the genuine
scientific theory and there is the talk-radio pretend version, designed not
to enlighten but to deceive and enrage.

The talk-radio version had a packed town hall up in arms at the "Why
Evolution Is Stupid" lecture. In this version of the theory, scientists
supposedly believe that all life is accidental, a random crash of molecules
that magically produced flowers, horses and humans -- a scenario as unlikely
as a tornado in a junkyard assembling a 747. Humans come from monkeys in
this theory, just popping into existence one day. The evidence against
Darwin is overwhelming, the purveyors of talk-radio evolution rail, yet
scientists embrace his ideas because they want to promote atheism.
"
[edit] Outside the United States
Views on human evolution in various countries.[128][129]

While the controversy has been prominent in the United States, it has flared
up in other countries as well.[130][131][132]
[edit] Europe

Europeans have often regarded the creation-evolution controversy as an
American matter.[131] However, in recent years the conflict has become an
issue in a variety of countries including Germany, The United Kingdom,
Italy, the Netherlands, Poland and Serbia.[131][132][133][134]

On 17 September 2007 the Committee on Culture, Science and Education of the
Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe issued a report on the
attempt by American inspired creationists to promote creationism in European
schools. It concludes "If we are not careful, creationism could become a
threat to human rights which are a key concern of the Council of Europe....
The war on the theory of evolution and on its proponents most often
originates in forms of religious extremism which are closely allied to
extreme right-wing political movements... some advocates of creationism are
out to replace democracy by theocracy."[135]
[edit] Australia

With declining church attendance, there has been some growth in
fundamentalist and Pentecostal Christian denominations.[136] Under the
former Queensland state government of Joh Bjelke-Petersen, in 1980 lobbying
was so successful that Queensland allowed the teaching of creationism as
science to school children. Public lectures have been given in rented rooms
at Universities, by visiting American speakers, and speakers with doctorates
purchased by mail from Florida sites.[137] One of the most acrimonious
aspects of the Australian debate was featured on the science television
program Quantum, about a long-running and ultimately unsuccessful court case
by Ian Plimer, Professor of Geology at Melbourne University, against an
ordained minister, Dr. Allen Roberts, who had claimed that there were
remnants of Noah's Ark in eastern Turkey. Although the court found that Dr
Roberts had made false and misleading claims, they were not made in the
course of trade or commerce, so the case failed.[138]
[edit] Islamic countries
See also: Islamic creationism

In recent times, the controversy has become more prominent in Islamic
countries.[139] Currently, in Egypt evolution is taught in schools but Saudi
Arabia and Sudan have both banned the teaching of evolution in schools.[130]
Creation science has also been heavily promoted in Turkey and in immigrant
communities in Western Europe, primarily by Harun Yahya.[132]
o!nbo
2009-10-20 05:37:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Seon Ferguson
Post by 0!n0b
Post by Seon Ferguson
Why don't you ever talk about how the right
are trying to get evolution banned from being
taught in school?
Huh?
First I've heard of this.
Cite (reputable of course)?
Only in America. Oh and please don't attack
wikipedia. Click on the SOURCES it provides.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation%E2%80%93evolution_controversy
Yes, but why are carbon crackpots trying to
establish some sort of link, between a scepticism
og AG\W with creationism?
Because they can't refute the sceptical arguments,
so they resort to smear ....



Regards

Bonz0

"I care about the environment (I grew up in a
solar house) and think there are a dozen good
reasons why we should burn less fossil fuels,
but.global warming is not one of them."
Nir Shaviv, Israeli physicist 2009
Seon Ferguson
2009-10-20 07:26:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Seon Ferguson
Post by 0!n0b
Post by Seon Ferguson
Why don't you ever talk about how the right are trying to get evolution
banned from being taught in school?
Huh?
First I've heard of this.
Cite (reputable of course)?
Only in America. Oh and please don't attack wikipedia. Click on the
SOURCES it provides.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation%E2%80%93evolution_controversy
Yes, but why are carbon crackpots trying to establish some sort of link,
between a scepticism og AG\W with creationism?
Because they can't refute the sceptical arguments, so they resort to smear
....
Do you mean of?
I'm not. I'm merely pointing out that right wingers are trying to censor
science as well. I have heard man made global warming deniers being linked
to holocaust deniers. But at least do you admit that the right is trying to
censor science as well and it's not just man made global warming cultists.
Regards
Bonz0
"I care about the environment (I grew up in a solar house) and think there
are a dozen good reasons why we should burn less fossil fuels, but.global
warming is not one of them."
Nir Shaviv, Israeli physicist 2009
o!nbo
2009-10-20 23:00:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Seon Ferguson
Post by o!nbo
Post by Seon Ferguson
Post by 0!n0b
Post by Seon Ferguson
Why don't you ever talk about how the right
are trying to get evolution banned from
being taught in school?
Huh?
First I've heard of this.
Cite (reputable of course)?
Only in America. Oh and please don't attack
wikipedia. Click on the SOURCES it provides.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation%E2%80%93evolution_controversy
Yes, but why are carbon crackpots trying to
establish some sort of link, between a
scepticism og AG\W with creationism?
Because they can't refute the sceptical
arguments, so they resort to smear ....
Do you mean of?
I'm not. I'm merely pointing out that right
wingers are trying to censor science as well. I
have heard man made global warming deniers being
linked to holocaust deniers. But at least do you
admit that the right is trying to censor science
as well and it's not just man made global
warming cultists.
"censor science"??
You mean like this?


"We have to get rid of the Mediæval Warm Period"
Confided to geophysicist David Deming by the IPCC,
1995

[Many believe that man to be Jonathan Overpeck,
which Prof. Deming didn't deny in an email
response, who would later also serve as an IPCC
lead author.]



"We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why
should I make the data available to you, when your
aim is to try and find something wrong with it?"
Phil Jones Director, The CRU



"We have to offer up scary scenarios, make
simplified, dramatic statements, and make little
mention of any doubts we might have." Professor
Stephen Schneider



"It doesn't matter what is true, it only matters
what people believe is true.... You are what the
media define you to be. Greenpeace became a myth
and fund generating machine." Paul Watson,
Co-Founder Greenpeace, Forbes, Nov. 1991







Regards



Bonz0



"I care about the environment (I grew up in a
solar house) and think there are a dozen good
reasons why we should burn less fossil fuels,
but.global warming is not one of them."

Nir Shaviv, Israeli physicist 2009
Seon Ferguson
2009-10-21 00:59:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by o!nbo
Post by Seon Ferguson
Post by Seon Ferguson
Post by 0!n0b
Post by Seon Ferguson
Why don't you ever talk about how the right are trying to get
evolution banned from being taught in school?
Huh?
First I've heard of this.
Cite (reputable of course)?
Only in America. Oh and please don't attack wikipedia. Click on the
SOURCES it provides.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation%E2%80%93evolution_controversy
Yes, but why are carbon crackpots trying to establish some sort of link,
between a scepticism og AG\W with creationism?
Because they can't refute the sceptical arguments, so they resort to
smear ....
Do you mean of?
I'm not. I'm merely pointing out that right wingers are trying to censor
science as well. I have heard man made global warming deniers being
linked to holocaust deniers. But at least do you admit that the right is
trying to censor science as well and it's not just man made global
warming cultists.
"censor science"??
You mean like this?
No like the way they tried to in that article.
Post by o!nbo
"We have to get rid of the Mediæval Warm Period" Confided to geophysicist
David Deming by the IPCC, 1995
[Many believe that man to be Jonathan Overpeck, which Prof. Deming didn't
deny in an email response, who would later also serve as an IPCC lead
author.]
"We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data
available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with
it?" Phil Jones Director, The CRU
"We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic
statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have."
Professor Stephen Schneider
"It doesn't matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is
true.... You are what the media define you to be. Greenpeace became a myth
and fund generating machine." Paul Watson, Co-Founder Greenpeace, Forbes,
Nov. 1991
Regards
Bonz0
"I care about the environment (I grew up in a solar house) and think there
are a dozen good reasons why we should burn less fossil fuels, but.global
warming is not one of them."
Nir Shaviv, Israeli physicist 2009
o%nbo
2009-10-21 03:43:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Seon Ferguson
Post by o!nbo
Post by Seon Ferguson
Post by o!nbo
Post by Seon Ferguson
Post by 0!n0b
Post by Seon Ferguson
Why don't you ever talk about how the
right are trying to get evolution banned
from being taught in school?
Huh?
First I've heard of this.
Cite (reputable of course)?
Only in America. Oh and please don't attack
wikipedia. Click on the SOURCES it provides.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation%E2%80%93evolution_controversy
Yes, but why are carbon crackpots trying to
establish some sort of link, between a
scepticism og AG\W with creationism?
Because they can't refute the sceptical
arguments, so they resort to smear ....
Do you mean of?
I'm not. I'm merely pointing out that right
wingers are trying to censor science as well.
I have heard man made global warming deniers
being linked to holocaust deniers. But at
least do you admit that the right is trying to
censor science as well and it's not just man
made global warming cultists.
"censor science"??
You mean like this?
No like the way they tried to in that article.
So it's only censorship when it doesn't fit your
socialist agenda.
Got it!



Regards

Bonz0

"I care about the environment (I grew up in a
solar house) and think there are a dozen good
reasons why we should burn less fossil fuels,
but.global warming is not one of them."
Nir Shaviv, Israeli physicist 2009
Post by Seon Ferguson
Post by o!nbo
"We have to get rid of the Mediæval Warm
Period" Confided to geophysicist David Deming
by the IPCC, 1995
[Many believe that man to be Jonathan Overpeck,
which Prof. Deming didn't deny in an email
response, who would later also serve as an IPCC
lead author.]
"We have 25 years or so invested in the work.
Why should I make the data available to you,
when your aim is to try and find something
wrong with it?" Phil Jones Director, The CRU
"We have to offer up scary scenarios, make
simplified, dramatic statements, and make
little mention of any doubts we might have."
Professor Stephen Schneider
"It doesn't matter what is true, it only
matters what people believe is true.... You are
what the media define you to be. Greenpeace
became a myth and fund generating machine."
Paul Watson, Co-Founder Greenpeace, Forbes,
Nov. 1991
Regards
Bonz0
"I care about the environment (I grew up in a
solar house) and think there are a dozen good
reasons why we should burn less fossil fuels,
but.global warming is not one of them."
Nir Shaviv, Israeli physicist 2009
Seon Ferguson
2009-10-21 06:18:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Seon Ferguson
Post by o!nbo
Post by Seon Ferguson
Post by Seon Ferguson
Post by 0!n0b
Post by Seon Ferguson
Why don't you ever talk about how the right are trying to get
evolution banned from being taught in school?
Huh?
First I've heard of this.
Cite (reputable of course)?
Only in America. Oh and please don't attack wikipedia. Click on the
SOURCES it provides.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation%E2%80%93evolution_controversy
Yes, but why are carbon crackpots trying to establish some sort of
link, between a scepticism og AG\W with creationism?
Because they can't refute the sceptical arguments, so they resort to
smear ....
Do you mean of?
I'm not. I'm merely pointing out that right wingers are trying to
censor science as well. I have heard man made global warming deniers
being linked to holocaust deniers. But at least do you admit that the
right is trying to censor science as well and it's not just man made
global warming cultists.
"censor science"??
You mean like this?
No like the way they tried to in that article.
So it's only censorship when it doesn't fit your socialist agenda.
Got it!
I question man made global warming but your obnoxiousness and calling anyone
who disagrees with you a socialist (do you even know what that is?) makes me
want to jump on the band wagon just to escape being linked to people like
you. In other words give yourself an uppercut.
n00b]
2009-10-21 05:36:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Seon Ferguson
Post by o%nbo
Post by Seon Ferguson
Post by o!nbo
Post by Seon Ferguson
Post by o!nbo
Post by Seon Ferguson
Post by 0!n0b
Post by Seon Ferguson
Why don't you ever talk about how the
right are trying to get evolution banned
from being taught in school?
Huh?
First I've heard of this.
Cite (reputable of course)?
Only in America. Oh and please don't
attack wikipedia. Click on the SOURCES it
provides.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation%E2%80%93evolution_controversy
Yes, but why are carbon crackpots trying to
establish some sort of link, between a
scepticism og AG\W with creationism?
Because they can't refute the sceptical
arguments, so they resort to smear ....
Do you mean of?
I'm not. I'm merely pointing out that right
wingers are trying to censor science as
well. I have heard man made global warming
deniers being linked to holocaust deniers.
But at least do you admit that the right is
trying to censor science as well and it's
not just man made global warming cultists.
"censor science"??
You mean like this?
No like the way they tried to in that article.
So it's only censorship when it doesn't fit
your socialist agenda.
Got it!
I question man made global warming but your
obnoxiousness and calling anyone who disagrees
with you a socialist (do you even know what that
is?) makes me want to jump on the band wagon
just to escape being linked to people like you.
In other words give yourself an uppercut.
Here, read this ...



The Copenhagen Treaty Would Amounts To A Fledgling
Communist World Government

Lord Monckton - Reveals Inconvenient Truth About
Copenhagen Treaty

20 October 2009



QUOTE: The Copenhagen treaty, he asserts, goes
much further than any previous document. It
amounts to a fledgling communist world government.



QUOTE: Nobody seems to have read the small print
until I picked it up. It's quite extraordinary
that this has got as far as it has with nobody
noticing



QUOTE : Morris Strong, a Canadian bureaucrat who
originally set up the structure of the UN's IPCC
some 20-odd years ago...always wanted it to
transmogrify into a world government, and he's now
going to get his way far faster than any of us had
realized unless we can stop him









Take That, Al Baby! Monckton Makes It to the Glenn
Beck Radio Program...and Beyond Glenn Beck's third
hour of radio this morning delivered a significant
blow to the international treaty President Obama
is expected to sign in Copenhagen in early
December.



Mr. Beck spoke for approximately fifteen minutes
with Lord Christoper Monckton. A former advisor on
science policy to Lady Margaret Thatcher, Monckton
has become known around the world as the "Anti Al
Gore."



Those who read my previous article, or who have
now seen the video of Lord Monckton's October 14th
lecture at Bethel University, will already know
that his message now extends beyond the global
warming lie itself. Rather his Lordship is busily
sounding an alarm about where that lie will
shortly take us if we do not act quickly to stop
it.



Beck and Monckton clearly have an easy
conversational rapport. The two have spoken in the
past, and both possess an excellent sense of
humor.



A few humorous moments aside, though, the
seriousness of the subject before them was clearly
driving the discussion.



Monckton began with some backstory on the treaty
President Obama is expected to sign in a few
weeks' time.



The plan it contains was apparently worked out in
large measure at the 2007 Conference of the
States' Parties to the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Bali,
Indonesia.



It's is the same conference that will reconvene in
Copenhagen on-how oddly symbolic-December 7th of
this year.



Let's not pretend.



George W. Bush failed repeatedly to protect our
southern border in any meaningful way. That said,
he was no friend to the UNFCCC. One has to give
the man credit for rightly maintaining during his
eight years in office that the 1997 Kyoto
Protocol, and any international agreement that
smelled like it, remained an exceptionally bad
idea for US business and, um, what's that word
again...? Oh yes...sovereignty.



So, the UNFCCC has been biding its time.



Now that W. is out of the way, they're ready to
push ahead with the aims he inconveniently refused
to share.



What precisely are the UNFCCC's aims where the
Copenhagen treaty is concerned?



Monckton summarized plainly: "There will be a new,
vast, interlocking, bureaucratic entity created at
huge expense to you and me, and that bureaucratic
entity will have three purposes, the first of
which is twice stated to be government."



The second purpose, Monckton continued, involves
the broad transfer of wealth from first-world
countries like the US and Western European nations
to the Third World for what is described as
"climate debt."



Here, then, is the reparations scam about which I
wrote a few days ago.



Billed as horrible, nasty, wasty polluters, we
will be forced to pay up 2% of our GDP as payment
for having ruined the earth for the people of
poorer nations around the world.



Never mind that we've now largely cleaned up after
ourselves.



Also, one needs to ignore the fact that some of
the very nations to which our
"we're-so-sorry-we've-been-horrible-monsters"
money will go are now entering their own
industrial periods and have begun belching out
"dangerous" carbon emissions in precisely the same
manner we used to do.



Something is distinctly rotten in the State of
Denmark.



The third task the treaty lays out is enforcement.



The new government the document establishes will
have the power to force countries to pay their
specified contributions whether they like it or
not. I have not yet perused the treaty closely
enough to understand fully the nature of the
enforcement program or the degree to which it is
has been laid out.



However, Monckton did explain that it describes "a
series of interlocking, technical panels that will
have the right directly to intervene in the
economies and the environments of individual
countries over the heads of their elected
governments"



Monckton made no bones as to his assessment.



The Copenhagen treaty, he asserts, goes much
further than any previous document.



It amounts to a fledgling communist world
government.



Anyone who follows me on Twitter will know that
just after President Obama received his Nobel
Peace Prize, I alluded to it as a form of
political bribery or graft.



Monckton similarly labeled it during last week's
dinner conversation and reiterated that opinion
today in speaking with Mr. Beck: "The danger is,
now that he's been given his Nobel Peace Prize, if
he goes to Copenhagen with Al Gore at one elbow
and Jim Hansen at the other, in front of the
keening zombies in their tens of thousands, he'll
sign anything," Monckton remarked.



"And he won't have read the small print.

Nobody seems to have read the small print until I
picked it up. It's quite extraordinary that this
has got as far as it has with nobody noticing."



Monckton continued by identifying one of the
treaties key origins: "Morris Strong, a Canadian
bureaucrat who originally set up the structure of
the UN's IPCC some 20-odd years ago...always
wanted it to transmogrify into a world government,
and he's now going to get his way far faster than
any of us had realized unless we can stop him."



Beck and Monckton then launched into a discussion
of how Congress will respond to the Copenhagen
treaty.



The Constitution's treaty clause (Article II,
Section 2, Clause 2) states that "the president
shall have Power, by and with the Advice and
Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided
two thirds of the Senators present concur."



Monckton seemed quite doubtful that President
Obama could count on a super-majority of that
nature for this treaty.



Consequently, his Lordship strongly suspects that
the administration would make an end run around
the two-thirds rule by pushing for a simple
majority in both houses of Congress. Far more
likely to succeed, this strategy would enact the
Copenhagen treaty into US domestic, as opposed to
international, law.



Unlike a foreign treaty-from which it would be
extremely difficult to resile-domestic legislation
could potentially be repealed. Theoretically,
that's a slightly less disastrous scenario. But
for realists, the handwriting is on the wall:
Should Congress enact such sweeping policy, even
on a domestic level, the last finger will have
been pulled from the protective dike that is US
sovereignty. It would not take long for that fact
to become formally recognized.



In response to Monckton's conjectures about the
way the treaty would be maneuvered into passage,
Beck aptly noted that when the Left cannot get
Congress to pass its cherished agendas, it has a
history of enlisting cities and states to litigate
those matters in court.



Such actions have the effect of leaving a wide
swath of judicial record-and often a very false
impression about the movement of the country on
those issues. Should the US Supreme Court decide
to rule on any related matters, such "movement"
would likely prove a factor in deliberations.
Beck's fears on this score are unquestionably well
founded.



Nevertheless, Monckton cited an important obstacle
that now lies in the Left's path if it attempts
this sort of litigious route...



Richard Lindzen of MIT, the Alfred P. Sloan
Professor of Planetary and Atmospheric Sciences,
has in the last two months, released a salient
(understatement of the year) study on climate
feedbacks. Simple in concept but meticulous in
execution, Lindzen's study measures the escape of
outgoing radiation into space.



Al Gore and those with whom the former vice
president aligns himself claim, of course, that
such radiation becomes trapped within the earth's
atmosphere, leading to precipitous and disastrous
warming.



Yet Lindzen's study finds quite the opposite: such
radiation has continued escaping out into space at
rates that would seem finally to put an end the
global warming scare.



Results indicate, in fact, that the effects of CO2
on temperature over the course of the next century
will remain well below 2° F, possibly as low as 1°
F. These projections amount to less than one sixth
of what the UN claims and are, quite simply,
negligible.



Better still, where all previous projections were
based solely on computer modeling-much of it
wildly biased-Lindzen's projections are based on
hard data accumulated over the course of 20 years.



Monckton had actually published a paper last year
that arrived at the same conclusions from a
theoretical perspective. Now Lindzen's rigorously
conducted science backs him up.



Naturally, others will want to examine and test
Linden's findings. But once his study and the
careful workmanship with which he executed it gain
wider exposure-and it shouldn't take long-Congress
will find it much harder to justify any treaty
that attempts to leverage the exposed lie of
anthropogenic climate change.



Be watching everyone. Mr. Beck is not done with
this topic. He's invited Lord Monckton to spend a
full hour on his Fox News television program.



Expect further discussion around the treaty's
content, the political maneuvering involved in
positioning it, and the implications for all of us
should it be enacted in any manner.



And look for former UN Ambassador John Bolton to
be present for that discussion as well. No date
has yet been announced, but Monckton will be in
range of New York later this week.



http://www.rightsidenews.com/200910206919/energy-and-environment/glenn-beck-interviews-lord-monckton-reveals-inconvenient-truth-about-copenhagen-treaty.html





Regards



Bonz0



"I care about the environment (I grew up in a
solar house) and think there are a dozen good
reasons why we should burn less fossil fuels,
but.global warming is not one of them."

Nir Shaviv, Israeli physicist 2009
Seon Ferguson
2009-10-21 06:46:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by n00b]
Post by Seon Ferguson
Post by Seon Ferguson
Post by o!nbo
Post by Seon Ferguson
Post by Seon Ferguson
Post by 0!n0b
Post by Seon Ferguson
Why don't you ever talk about how the right are trying to get
evolution banned from being taught in school?
Huh?
First I've heard of this.
Cite (reputable of course)?
Only in America. Oh and please don't attack wikipedia. Click on the
SOURCES it provides.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation%E2%80%93evolution_controversy
Yes, but why are carbon crackpots trying to establish some sort of
link, between a scepticism og AG\W with creationism?
Because they can't refute the sceptical arguments, so they resort to
smear ....
Do you mean of?
I'm not. I'm merely pointing out that right wingers are trying to
censor science as well. I have heard man made global warming deniers
being linked to holocaust deniers. But at least do you admit that the
right is trying to censor science as well and it's not just man made
global warming cultists.
"censor science"??
You mean like this?
No like the way they tried to in that article.
So it's only censorship when it doesn't fit your socialist agenda.
Got it!
I question man made global warming but your obnoxiousness and calling
anyone who disagrees with you a socialist (do you even know what that
is?) makes me want to jump on the band wagon just to escape being linked
to people like you. In other words give yourself an uppercut.
Here, read this ...
Lol Glen Beck that's real credible.
I heard the kook Alex Jones say the same thing. Do you have a copy of the
actual text that calls for a world government from a credible source?
Post by n00b]
The Constitution's treaty clause (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2) states
that "the president shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent
of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators
present concur."
What's wrong with treaties?
Post by n00b]
Monckton seemed quite doubtful that President Obama could count on a
super-majority of that nature for this treaty.
Consequently, his Lordship strongly suspects that the administration would
make an end run around the two-thirds rule by pushing for a simple
majority in both houses of Congress. Far more likely to succeed, this
strategy would enact the Copenhagen treaty into US domestic, as opposed to
international, law.
Unlike a foreign treaty-from which it would be extremely difficult to
resile-domestic legislation could potentially be repealed. Theoretically,
that's a slightly less disastrous scenario. But for realists, the
handwriting is on the wall: Should Congress enact such sweeping policy,
even on a domestic level, the last finger will have been pulled from the
protective dike that is US sovereignty. It would not take long for that
fact to become formally recognized.
In response to Monckton's conjectures about the way the treaty would be
maneuvered into passage, Beck aptly noted that when the Left cannot get
Congress to pass its cherished agendas, it has a history of enlisting
cities and states to litigate those matters in court.
Such actions have the effect of leaving a wide swath of judicial
record-and often a very false impression about the movement of the country
on those issues. Should the US Supreme Court decide to rule on any related
matters, such "movement" would likely prove a factor in deliberations.
Beck's fears on this score are unquestionably well founded.
Nevertheless, Monckton cited an important obstacle that now lies in the
Left's path if it attempts this sort of litigious route...
Richard Lindzen of MIT, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Planetary and
Atmospheric Sciences, has in the last two months, released a salient
(understatement of the year) study on climate feedbacks. Simple in concept
but meticulous in execution, Lindzen's study measures the escape of
outgoing radiation into space.
Al Gore and those with whom the former vice president aligns himself
claim, of course, that such radiation becomes trapped within the earth's
atmosphere, leading to precipitous and disastrous warming.
Yet Lindzen's study finds quite the opposite: such radiation has continued
escaping out into space at rates that would seem finally to put an end the
global warming scare.
Results indicate, in fact, that the effects of CO2 on temperature over the
course of the next century will remain well below 2° F, possibly as low as
1° F. These projections amount to less than one sixth of what the UN
claims and are, quite simply, negligible.
Better still, where all previous projections were based solely on computer
modeling-much of it wildly biased-Lindzen's projections are based on hard
data accumulated over the course of 20 years.
Monckton had actually published a paper last year that arrived at the same
conclusions from a theoretical perspective. Now Lindzen's rigorously
conducted science backs him up.
Naturally, others will want to examine and test Linden's findings. But
once his study and the careful workmanship with which he executed it gain
wider exposure-and it shouldn't take long-Congress will find it much
harder to justify any treaty that attempts to leverage the exposed lie of
anthropogenic climate change.
Be watching everyone. Mr. Beck is not done with this topic. He's invited
Lord Monckton to spend a full hour on his Fox News television program.
Expect further discussion around the treaty's content, the political
maneuvering involved in positioning it, and the implications for all of us
should it be enacted in any manner.
And look for former UN Ambassador John Bolton to be present for that
discussion as well. No date has yet been announced, but Monckton will be
in range of New York later this week.
http://www.rightsidenews.com/200910206919/energy-and-environment/glenn-beck-interviews-lord-monckton-reveals-inconvenient-truth-about-copenhagen-treaty.html
Regards
Bonz0
"I care about the environment (I grew up in a solar house) and think there
are a dozen good reasons why we should burn less fossil fuels, but.global
warming is not one of them."
Nir Shaviv, Israeli physicist 2009
o!nbo
2009-10-20 23:02:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Seon Ferguson
I'm not. I'm merely pointing out that right
wingers are trying to censor science as well. I
have heard man made global warming deniers being
linked to holocaust deniers. But at least do you
admit that the right is trying to censor science
as well and it's not just man made global
warming cultists.
"censor science"?
You mean like this?




Another Instance Of Cherrypicking By The IPCC

Why would a peer-reviewed article about the link
between hurricanes and global warming be described
as "shameful" and excluded from the IPCC report?
Because it found there is no link

9 October 2009



The "Shameful Article": A Review and Update



As the world continues to suffer a "depression" in
global tropical cyclone activity with activity at
30-year lows, and hurricane forecasters try to
keep busy while watching the listless Atlantic, I
thought that for those who haven't been reading
this blog for the past 5 years (which I assume is
most everyone;-) it would be worth reviewing a bit
of the history of the science on hurricanes and
global warming, and how that science was ignored
by the IPCC.



In 2004 and 2005 (before Katrina), I led an
interdisciplinary effort to review the literature
on hurricanes and global warming.



The effort resulted in a peer-reviewed article in
the Bulletin of the American Meteorological
Society



Upon its acceptance Kevin Trenberth, a "scientist"
at NCAR here at Boulder and the person in charge
of the 2007 IPCC AR4 chapter that reviewed extreme
events including hurricanes, said this in the
Boulder Daily Camera (emphasis added) about our
article:



"I think the role of the changing climate is
greatly underestimated by Roger Pielke Jr. I think
he should withdraw this article. This is a
shameful article."





Here is what the "shameful article" concluded:

"To summarize, claims of linkages between global
warming and hurricane impacts are premature for
three reasons.

First, no connection has been established between
greenhouse gas emissions and the observed behavior
of hurricanes . . .

Second, the peer-reviewed literature reflects that
a scientific consensus exists that any future
changes in hurricane intensities will likely be
small in the context of observed variability . . .

And third, under the assumptions of the IPCC,
expected future damages to society of its
projected changes in the behavior of hurricanes
are dwarfed by the influence of its own
projections of growing wealth and population . . .

While future research or experience may yet
overturn these conclusions, the state of the
peer-reviewed knowledge today is such that there
are good reasons to expect that any conclusive
connection between global warming and hurricanes
or their impacts will not be made in the near
term."



When Trenberth called the article shameful I
responded on Prometheus with this comment:



"Upon reading Kevin's strong statements in the
press a few weeks ago, I emailed him to ask where
specifically he disagreed with our paper and I
received no response; apparently he prefers to
discuss this issue only through the media. So I'll
again extend an invitation to Kevin to respond
substantively, rather than simply call our paper 'shameful'
and ask for its withdrawal (and I suppose
implicitly faulting the peer review process at
BAMS): Please identify what statements we made in
our paper you disagree with and the scientific
basis for your disagreement. If you'd prefer not
to respond here, I will eagerly look forward to a
letter to BAMS in response to our paper."



"Climate change is a big deal. We in the
scientific community owe it to the public and
policy makers to be open about our debates on
science and policy issues. We've offered a
peer-reviewed, integrative perspective on
hurricanes and global warming. I hold those with
different perspectives in high regard - such
diversity makes science strong. But at a minimum
it seems only fair to ask those who say publicly
that they disagree with our perspective to explain
the basis for their disagreement, instead of
offering up only incendiary rhetoric for the
media. Given that Kevin is the IPCC lead author
responsible for evaluating our paper in the
context of the IPCC, such transparency of
perspective seems particularly appropriate."



Not surprisingly the IPCC chapter that Trenberth
led for the IPCC made no mention of our article,
despite it being peer reviewed and being the most
recently published review of this topic prior to
the IPCC publication deadline (the relevant IPCC
chapter is here in PDF).



Even though the IPCC didn't see the paper as worth
discussing, a high-profile team of scientists saw
fit to write up a commentary in response to our
article in BAMS.



One of those high-profile scientists was
Trenberth. Trenberth and his colleagues argued
that our article was flawed in three respects, it
was,



". . . incomplete and misleading because it

1) omits any mention of several of the most
important aspects of the potential relationships
between hurricanes and global warming, including
rainfall, sea level, and storm surge;

2) leaves the impression that there is no
significant connection between recent climate
change caused by human activities and hurricane
characteristics and impacts; and

3) does not take full account of the significance
of recently identified trends and variations in
tropical storms in causing impacts as compared to
increasing societal vulnerability."



Our response to their comment focused on the three
points that they raised:



"Anthes et al. (2006) present three criticisms of
our paper. One criticism is that Pielke et al.
(2005) "leaves the impression that there is no
significant connection between recent climate
change caused by human activities and hurricane
characteristics and impacts." If by "significant"
they mean either

(a) presence in the peer-reviewed literature or

(b) discernible in the observed economic impacts,
then this is indeed an accurate reading. Anthes et
al. (2006) provide no data, analyses, or
references that directly connect observed
hurricane characteristics and impacts to
anthropogenic climate change. . ."



"In a second criticism, Anthes et al. (2006) point
out (quite accurately) that Pielke et al. (2005)
failed to discuss the relationship between global
warming and rainfall, sea level, and storm surge
as related to tropical cyclones. The explanation
for this neglect is simple-there is no documented
relationship between global warming and the
observed behavior of tropical cyclones (or TC
impacts) related to rainfall, sea level, or storm
surge. . ."



"A final criticism by Anthes et al. (2006) is that
Pielke et al. (2005) "does not take full account
of the significance of recently identified trends
and variations in tropical storms in causing
impacts as compared to increasing societal
vulnerability." Anthes et al. (2006) make no
reference to the literature that seeks to
distinguish the relative role of climate factors
versus societal factors in causing impacts (e.g.,
Pielke et al. 2000; Pielke 2005), so their point
is unclear. There is simply no evidence, data, or
references provided by Anthes et al. (2006) to
counter the analysis in Pielke et al. (2000) that
calculates the relative sensitivity of future
global tropical cyclone impacts to the independent
effects of projected climate change and various
scenarios of growing societal vulnerability under
the assumptions of the IPCC".



This series of exchanges was not acknowledged by
the IPCC even though it was all peer-reviewed and
appeared in the leading journal of the American
Meteorological Society.



As we have seen before with the IPCC, its review
of the literature somehow missed key articles that
one of its authors (in this case Trenberth, the
lead for the relevant chapter) found to be in
conflict with his personal views, or in this case
"shameful."



Of course, there is a deeper backstory here
involving a conflict between my co-author Chris
Landsea and Trenberth in early 2005, prompting
Landsea to resign from the IPCC.



So almost five years after we first submitted our
paper how does it hold up?



Pretty well I think, on all counts.



I would not change any of the conclusions above,
nor would I change the reply to Anthes et al.



Science changes and moves ahead, so any review
will eventually become outdated, but ours was an
accurate reflection of the state of science as of
2005.



However, you won't find any of this in the IPCC.



Papers and links



Anthes et al. 2006, Hurricanes and global warming:
Potential linkage and consequences, BAMS, Vol. 87,
pp. 623-628.



Pielke, Jr., R. A., C. Landsea, M. Mayfield, J.
Laver and R. Pasch, 2005. Hurricanes and global
warming, Bulletin of the American Meteorological
Society, 86:1571-1575.



Pielke, Jr., R. A., C.W. Landsea, M. Mayfield, J.
Laver, R. Pasch, 2006. Reply to Hurricanes and
Global Warming Potential Linkages and
Consequences, Bulletin of the American
Meteorological Society, Vol. 87, pp. 628-631, May.



http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/10/shameful-article-review-and-update.html





Regards



Bonz0



"I care about the environment (I grew up in a
solar house) and think there are a dozen good
reasons why we should burn less fossil fuels,
but.global warming is not one of them."

Nir Shaviv, Israeli physicist 2009
o!nbo
2009-10-20 23:03:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Seon Ferguson
I'm not. I'm merely pointing out that right
wingers are trying to censor science as well. I
have heard man made global warming deniers being
linked to holocaust deniers. But at least do you
admit that the right is trying to censor science
as well and it's not just man made global
warming cultists.
"censor science"?
Aha, like this you mean?





Silencing Sceptical Scientists

September 12 2009



QUOTE: Almost the only scientists at liberty to
speak their minds are retirees



QUOTE: "The difficulty for the sceptics is that
credible argument against accepted wisdom
requires, as did the development of the accepted
wisdom itself, large-scale resources which can
only be supplied by the research institutions.
Without those resources, the sceptic is only an
amateur who can quite easily be confined to outer
darkness."









Garth Paltridge was a chief research scientist
with the CSIRO's division of atmospheric research
before becoming the director of the Institute of
Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies and chief
executive of the Antarctic Co-operative Research
Centre.



His latest sceptical contribution to the debate on
the dangers of carbon dioxide is a book,
endearingly titled The Climate Caper.



Paltridge gives a crisp summary of the physics and
economics of climate change, but I want to focus
here on his account of the new green religion.



"Perhaps the most interesting question in all this
business is how it can be that the scientific
community has become so over-the-top in support of
its own propaganda about the seriousness and
certainty of upcoming drastic climate change.
Scientists after all are supposed to be unbiased
in their assessment of a problem and are expected
to tell it as it is. Over the centuries they have
built up the capital of their reputation on just
that supposition. And for the last couple of
decades they have put that capital very publicly
on the line in support of a cause which, to say
the least, is overhung by an enormous amount of
doubt. So how is it that the rest of the
scientific community, uncomfortable as it is with
both the science of global warming and the way its
politics is being played, continues to let the
reputation of science in general be put at
considerable risk because of the way the dangers
of climate change are being vastly oversold?"



Part of the answer lies in the way institutions
find ways to silence their employees.



Paltridge himself was involved in setting up the
Antarctic research centre in the early 90s with
the CSIRO. As he recalls: "I made the error at the
time of mentioning in a media interview --
reported extensively in The Australian on a slow
Easter Sunday -- that there were still lots of
doubts about the disaster potential of global
warming. Suffice it to say that within a couple of
days it was made clear to me from the highest
levels of CSIRO that, should I make such public
comments again, then it would pull out of the
process of forming the new centre."



The CSIRO, it turned out, was in the process of
trying to extract many millions of dollars for
further climate research at the time.



Almost the only scientists at liberty to speak
their minds are retirees, such as William
Kininmonth and Paltridge himself.



He gives an example, Brian Tucker, a former chief
of CSIRO's Atmospheric Research Division. Tucker
was "a specialist in numerical climate modelling
and therefore knew better than most where the
bodies are buried in the climate change game.



He kept remarkably quiet about his worries on the
matter.



Then he retired, and for four or five years
thereafter was the bane of the global warming
establishment because of his very public stance
against many of its sacred cows." Eventually he
was marginalised by being described as "one of the
usual suspects, who was now out of date and in any
event was probably on the payroll of industry".



Another eye-opener is the story of how a committee
of the Australian Academy of Science was dissuaded
from its plans to respond to the Garnaut Report.
Paltridge says: "While the committee was aware of
all the 'ifs' and 'buts' of 100-year prediction of
rainfall, it was aware too of the delicacy of
saying so in an Academy response.



But if indeed there is something of the order of a
50-50 chance that the forecasts supplied to
Garnaut were nonsense, then it seems reasonable
that the fact should be made known in plain
English ...



" Academy members met Garnaut and "rumour has it
that sometime during the meeting Professor Garnaut
became very sympathetic to the need for vast new
resources to address the need for basic research
... In the end it seems that the idea of a
response to the Garnaut Report was dropped
altogether."



Eventually the academy came out with a statement
of priorities for climate research, which
contained a brief reference to the fact that the
rainfall projections Garnaut relied on were
problematical, but most of the public were none
the wiser.



Paltridge says that behind the climate change
debate there are two basic truths seldom
articulated.



"The first is that the scientists pushing the
seriousness of global warming are perfectly well
aware of the great uncertainty attached to their
cause. The difficulty for them is to ensure that
the lip service paid to uncertainty is enough to
convince governments of the need to continue
research funding, but is not enough to cast real
doubt on the case for action. The paths of public
comment and official advice on the matter have to
be trodden very carefully. "



"The second basic truth is that there is a belief
among scientific 'global warmers' that they are an
under-funded minority among a sea of wicked
sceptics who are extensively funded by industry
and close to Satan. The difficulty for them is to
maintain a belief in their own minority status
while insisting in public that the sceptics, at
least among the ranks of the scientifically
literate, are very few."



The Royal Society did its own reputation a
disservice by sending a letter to Exxon-Mobil oil
corporation declaring an anathema on dissident
climate research.



It said: "To be still producing information that
misleads people about climate change is unhelpful.
The next IPCC report should give the people the
final push they need to take action and we can't
have people trying to undermine it."



Paltridge says: "The staggering thing is that the
society, which in other circumstances would be the
first to defend the cause of free inquiry ...
seemed not to be able to hear what it was saying."



He takes a gloomy view of the likelihood that the
political class will soon come to its senses.



"One suspects that a fair amount of the shrillness
of the climate message derives from a fear that
something will happen to prick the scientific
balloon so carefully inflated and overstretched
over the last few decades.



But the IPCC doesn't really need to worry.



"The difficulty for the sceptics is that credible
argument against accepted wisdom requires, as did
the development of the accepted wisdom itself,
large-scale resources which can only be supplied
by the research institutions. Without those
resources, the sceptic is only an amateur who can
quite easily be confined to outer darkness."



In the last chapter, Paltridge lists some hidden
agendas.



"There are those who, like president Jacques
Chirac of France, look with favour on the
possibility of an international de-carbonisation
regime because it would be the first step towards
global government. "



"There are those who, like the socialists before
them, see international action as a means to force
a redistribution of wealth both within and between
individual nations. "



"There are those who, like the powerbrokers of the
European Union, look upon such action as a basis
for legitimacy. "



"There are those who, like bureaucrats the world
over, regard the whole business mainly as a path
to the sort of power which, until now, has been
wielded only by the major religions. "



"More generally, there are those who, like the
politically correct everywhere, are driven by a
need for public expression of their own virtue."



http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26056202-5013596,00.html







Regards



Bonz0



"I care about the environment (I grew up in a
solar house) and think there are a dozen good
reasons why we should burn less fossil fuels,
but.global warming is not one of them."

Nir Shaviv, Israeli physicist 2009
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...