BS: Science under attack.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 19 Jun 11 - 12:43 PM

But if some alien could convince me that God exists though ... (?)

Supposing they could show you things that are way beyond our science and their science and told you they were miracles from God.

Might you be convinced or might you perhaps think "well there will be a scientific explanation some day - I'm still not convinced"?

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 19 Jun 11 - 12:40 PM

So you would choose to ignore the fact that there are many people of faith opposed to these things?

Why are they opposed to them when they're enshrined in the history and theology of the very faiths they have choosen to believe in? Odd. People are people though - and religion is a non-falsifiable cultural construct that (like Soap Opera & Folk Music) serves to comfort some and irritate others. I don't find it comforting nor do I find it particularly irritating - though I meet a lot of Christian do-gooders who still believe the majority of humanity is damned to an eternity of hell, which strikes me a strange thing for them to choose to believe in. But then I meet a lot of Folkies who can't stand Hip-Hop, The Fall, Kraut Rock or Free Jazz, all of which I love with a passion. At this point I'd like to say each to their own, but I find it hard to deal with people who have selected to believe in a doctrine which says I'm a miserable sinner who's going to spend eternity being tormented by demons.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 19 Jun 11 - 12:24 PM

A bad Christian, or even a bad era in organized religion, doesn't prove anything. Nor does a scientist who converts.

I don't think a scientist converting proves religion is right John but I do think the knowledge that it happens does quite reasonably cast doubt over suggestions that religion is (I suppose) necessarily the product of scientific ignorance.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 19 Jun 11 - 12:13 PM

"What would you do if you found religion existed everywhere there was "intelligent life"?"

That's a very good question, Jon! Somehow, though, I don't think that my first act would be to rush out and sign up for a religion. To misquote my dear old Mum: " Just because the whole Universe is sticking its head in the fire, doesn't mean that you have to as well!"

But if some alien could convince me that God exists though ... (?)

I agree with everything that you said on 19 Jun 11 - 4:52 AM, 'Suibhne Astray' - that's more or less what I think about religion too.

By the way, I don't describe myself as an 'atheist' but as an 'agnostic'. As a RC priest said to me once: "Ah! I see. A fence-sitter, eh?" To which I replied, "yep!" You see anything is possible but the existence of God doesn't strike me as very probable.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: John P
Date: 19 Jun 11 - 12:08 PM

Hey folks, people are people. There are saints and sinners, power-seekers and followers, ethical and otherwise, nice and nasty, selfless and greedy. Trying to say that all Christians are one thing or another, and that all of Christianity is bad is failing to take into account that people are people. Some of the best people I know are Christians, as are some of the worst. The same goes for atheists. Likewise, Christians who claim that atheists lack moral standing are equally guilty of ignoring individuals in order to make a grand statement.

A bad Christian, or even a bad era in organized religion, doesn't prove anything. Nor does a scientist who converts. Everyone seems to be seeking authority to make their points instead of talking about the merits of the statements.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 19 Jun 11 - 12:08 PM

Your right Greg, I should have stated I believe that through God nothing is impossible.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: Greg F.
Date: 19 Jun 11 - 12:05 PM

From: GUEST,Jon Date: 18 Jun 11 - 10:41 PM
Each to their own, John but I do believe that nothing is impossible.

Then you believe that its possible that "God" does not exist and religion is merely a human construct.

Right?

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 19 Jun 11 - 07:54 AM

Religions are cultish, cultural, diverse, bonkers

Presumably then it would follow that all Christians are [whatever], and all Muslims are [whatever],etc.?

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 19 Jun 11 - 07:48 AM

The Religious legacy is one of wholesale oppression, sexism, cultural, ethnic & class hatred that endures to this day. I'd say the reason is a no-brainer.

So you would choose to ignore the fact that there are many people of faith opposed to these things?

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 19 Jun 11 - 07:40 AM

What does this keeping people ignorant and servile achieve?

The Religious legacy is one of wholesale oppression, sexism, cultural, ethnic & class hatred that endures to this day. I'd say the reason is a no-brainer. The rich man in his castle; the poor man at his gate.

People are inclined to religion; it's pure fantasy folklore, unlike the commonality of science which is universal. Religions are cultish, cultural, diverse, bonkers and yet have given us some great works in terms of music, myth, art, literature, architecture etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 19 Jun 11 - 07:19 AM

Religion is a Human thing; Science likewise, but Science is peer-reviewed and falsifiable whereas Religion is fear-driven reactionary superstitious bull-shit perpetuated purely to keep people ignorant and servile.

One more question on this. What does this keeping people ignorant and servile achieve?

Assuming power is the motive and thinking in terms of earthly politics as the means to power, does Christianity turn them in to more socialist leaning people like myself or maybe capitalists? Going by Pete referring to a "fundamentalist", I'd imagine he and I would be likely to vote in different directions at an election.

A "conspiracy" that would split (or perhaps more likely leave untouched) the vote would seem a little pointless to me.

On a more personal level, I'm very much in favour of good education being freely available to all and worry about this governments moves. How does that fit in with being part of a plot to keep people ignorant?

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 19 Jun 11 - 06:59 AM

No one's perfect and religion is geared up to very significant comforts in the mythology zone of death, disease and suffering. Science offers cold facts which peeps can't cope with all of the time.

Rather than being consistent as you suggest, I think it seems to go either way and my suspicion is the other way round might be more common, eg. That a God could be so cruel as to allow a child to die or someone to suffer cancer adds to the "proof" that he doesn't exist, that people with existing faith can find themselves really doubting, etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 19 Jun 11 - 06:42 AM

So why do some highly (and in some cases scientifically) educated and intelligent people convert from atheism to belief in a something else(s)?

No one's perfect and religion is geared up to very significant comforts in the mythology zone of death, disease and suffering. Science offers cold facts which peeps can't cope with all of the time. For life to have meaning, it seems we need the make-believe as well as the real - the myth-realms of human invention that are, alas, so easily exploited.

it doesn't seem to have left much trace.

I think we see such traces in stone circles and cup-and-ring patterns; we see that same will to understand and control nature in the massive encircling henges of Avebury and Thornborough and the stark scientific geometry of Silbury Hill. Screw religion here - these guys were scientists making a human realm bigger than nature could ever be. Only in patronising retrospect to people assume such things had to be Religious Temples. Think again. Life, death, vitality in the human realm which is, after all, the whole of the case... Avebury one day; Spaghetti Junction the next!

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: DMcG
Date: 19 Jun 11 - 05:17 AM

I'm not wholly convinced, Suibhne. If there was a 'pure' form of enquiry as a first stage, which then got taken over by power-crazed opportunists and subverted into religions it doesn't seem to have left much trace. As far as I am aware, all the earliest (non-essential) artifacts seem to be religious in tone, or at the very least ambigious. Are you aware of any that support the 'pure enquiry' hypothesis?

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 19 Jun 11 - 05:06 AM

I suppose the question there Dave could be:

Would these aliens be like (or be) the angels in heaven or like ("sinful") man. If it's the latter, and with regards to Christianity, I suspect you would be right...

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 19 Jun 11 - 04:59 AM

Religion is a Human thing; Science likewise, but Science is peer-reviewed and falsifiable whereas Religion is fear-driven reactionary superstitious bull-shit perpetuated purely to keep people ignorant and servile.

So why do some highly (and in some cases scientifically) educated and intelligent people convert from atheism to belief in a something else(s)?

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: DMcG
Date: 19 Jun 11 - 04:55 AM

Ah, not content with making me chance my arm about whether possible-aliens with possible-intelligence are likely to have believed in a god or gods, you now want us to reflect on how earth religions fit with their concept of god. You like easy questions, don't you? *smile*

Ok, I'll go for it. Apologies if this offends anyone, but we have to think from a religious viewpoint for the next paragraph or two. It's part of the question, I'm afraid.

Christians often say it was necessary that Christ died for our sins. [I am unable to comment adequately on any other religion, sorry!] I think there is a certain amount of imprecise thinking there. It seems to me totally impossible that it was necessary to God that that should happen; we could have been forgiven sins at any time. No, the necessity is the other way about, it was necessary for us to see how far God was prepared to go to forgive us. The whole concept of 'revelation' depends upon god showing his forgiveness.

Now transpose that to our remote alien world. If the necessity was the first way round, then clearly the god of all universes is satisfied by the single sacrifice, but all those alien worlds do not have anything revealed to them. So my money would be on that a Christ-like figure is necessary in each world. Quite what form that revelation would take is beyond even my desire to take risks, and there is no reason it need involve death, but I would think it likely it involves some form of extreme sacrifice.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 19 Jun 11 - 04:52 AM

When did people first get the urge to worship stuff anyway? I reckon we were trying to make sense of it first - circa 35,000BCE - seeking the patterns of nature as other, the cycles, the malevolent and benevolent aspects - at which point some power-crazed opportunist starts personifying it into gods and spirits to get fear over people, so scientific curiosity gets subverted into Religion and we've been suffering ever since. Worse is when we stopped worshipping Nature and started worshipping The Creator of Nature instead - then we could do with nature pretty much as we pleased because then we were in pole position.

Religion is a Human thing; Science likewise, but Science is peer-reviewed and falsifiable whereas Religion is fear-driven reactionary superstitious bull-shit perpetuated purely to keep people ignorant and servile.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 19 Jun 11 - 04:35 AM

And I will (again) very briefly give my own background. I was a devout atheist until I was about 27 (I'm now 50) and although I became a school drop out, sciences were my subjects. Let's put it this way, I was taking A levels in physics, chemistry and maths and I had an A at O Level in biology. My RE O Level was not awarded a grade on the certificate - I got a U.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 19 Jun 11 - 04:29 AM

And to answer the question, I'd certainly be puzzled and would have to think things through.

What would you do if you found religion existed everywhere there was "intelligent life"?

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: GUEST,jon
Date: 19 Jun 11 - 04:14 AM

OK then Shimrod, I'll explain why I yawned.

What are you going to do, Jon and pete, if it turns out that those aliens have never heard of God - or have never seen the need to invent one?

The way I had read it, it carries the implication that religions are necessarily (rather than may be) invented by man. And it seemed a rather loaded question,

Apologies if I was wrong but what I thought was happening is common from (certain types of) atheists....

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: DMcG
Date: 19 Jun 11 - 04:11 AM

Well, science has lots of limitations. So far at least, it doesn't have the tools to measure all sorts of things ... That doesn't mean that it isn't pretty good at doing what it purports to do

I couldn't agree more. For me, it is not going too far to say that science is the most successful intellectual method mankind has ever produced and if you want to make a statement against the scientific consensus then you'd better do so using the scientific method itself. i.e. by constructing an independently-repeatable experiment that reveals a flaw in the consensus.

Having said that, though, I think we need to be humble enough to recognise that science does have limitations, and far too many armchair scientists (and not a few professional scientists) don't. It is understandable that they are reluctant to do so when under attack from people with ulterior motives or who think science results can be decided in a court of law, or by popular vote, but in the long run I think it a mistake to imply something is only true if it is scientifically provable.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 19 Jun 11 - 03:11 AM

The problem that I have with religions generally is that they are far too parochial. That's was the point that I was trying to make with my comments about possible aliens and whether or not they are likely to have religions.

Human religions purport to be about the infinite but when put on the spot can only resort to hand waving and put downs. Meanwhile out there - beyond the bounds of our tiny planet are vast, unfathomable gulfs containing infinite worlds.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 18 Jun 11 - 10:41 PM

Each to their own, John but I do believe that nothing is impossible. I think we just have degrees of probability based on our own understanding.

To attempt (perhaps badly) to respond to "all the other events that science, in its role as a describer of our world, tells us almost certainly didn't take place."

If there is a spiritual world, higher level or whatever it may be called, science would be unable to describe its capabilities or how it may be able to interact with the physical world we know.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: John P
Date: 18 Jun 11 - 10:12 PM

Well, science has lots of limitations. So far at least, it doesn't have the tools to measure all sorts of things, from football clubs to spiritual experience to emotions to beauty. That doesn't mean that it isn't pretty good at doing what it purports to do, which is describing as accurately as possible how the physical world works. In addition, it enforces the idea that things should make sense.

My big problem with accepting the Bible as truth is that it so very full of events that range from improbable to flatly impossible. I've always wondered why so many Christians who take the Bible literally appear to have left their brains at the door. It is possible to believe in God, to believe that Jesus was an incarnation of God on earth, and that the Bible contains lots of wisdom and truth, without also taking on things like virgin birth, raising from the dead, and all the other events that science, in its role as a describer of our world, tells us almost certainly didn't take place.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: DMcG
Date: 18 Jun 11 - 09:12 AM

Argo, not Argos. The problem of the Argos is why everything you want is out if stock

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: DMcG
Date: 18 Jun 11 - 09:03 AM

While I'd love to take credit for it, my example is just a modernisation of a problem the ancient Greeks knew about. I first heard of it referred to as the paradox of the Argos, but found people didn't really relate to that. A somewhat more modern version is known as Washington's Axe, but again lots of people think that's just a joke, so I came up with my version which I humbly offer above. Whatever, this problem of composite identity affects almost everything we deal with day-to-day (what is a brand, for example) yet this sort of existance is very different from the scientific notion of existance, whether a substance in a lab or a mathematical model. Which why I find it disappointing when someone as eminent as Stephen Hawking can write (in a book I read last week) "Philosophy is dead" in the sense of being replaced by science.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 18 Jun 11 - 08:07 AM

Interesting example, thanks Dave.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: DMcG
Date: 18 Jun 11 - 07:56 AM

I don't think you even need to get as far as the spiritual to stretch what science is capable of addressing adequately. An example I have used before is a football club. Legally speaking, I imagine a club is the documents used to create the constition, register it at Company House and so on. No fan would think that dry heap of papers is what the club 'is'. However, what it really is is too ephemeral to yield easily to scientific analysis. Sure, some aspects can: you can study fan behaviour via pyschology, or group dynamics when designing entrances and exits; you can study the best playing techniques through sports science, or model aspects with economics. No doubt you can all think of similar examples youself. Yet what the club itself 'is' remains outside the simply physical, and neither the ground nor the players are more than aspects of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 18 Jun 11 - 07:26 AM

nor whether there is some antithesis between believing in God and Science

I don't think they should be at odds with one another although some things are difficult. As mentioned above, I have not managed to resolve my own personal thinking on the creation to my (limited) satisfaction.

I however feel science has one (at least potential) limitation though. If there is a spiritual dimension of some form or other. examining purely on the physical level in unlikely to yield a complete picture.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 18 Jun 11 - 07:18 AM

2) If we are going to "believe in" the Bible, how do we know which version to choose to believe in?[snip]
3) Wouldn't such a choice have to have some reasons for it?

From a Christian perspective, I'd say we do not "believe in" the Bible but accept it as God's word or teaching but maybe you would consider that hair splitting.

A Christian would choose a Christian bible. Within this I believe there are a couple of differences in the books contained in the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Protestant cannons so the denomination might make a difference.

Apart from that, I think reasons of making a choice would include:

Having a common Bible for a group, eg. a church.

The language used in the translation. Personally I choose the New International Version as I find it easier than say the older English in the King James version without (I suppose) becoming too "simplified" in the use of the English language. Another person may prefer the (I'm told) more poetic style of the KJV, etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: DMcG
Date: 18 Jun 11 - 07:12 AM

No problem, Jon. I was not attempting to answer the question at an individual level, nor whether I thought God exists or not, nor whether there is some antithesis between believing in God and Science. As it happens, I think the two are quite compatible but that is a personal opinion and if others want to think otherwise they are free to do so without criticism from me.

No, I was simply giving a highly caveat-ed view on whether I think alien societies without a concept of god are likely. Reflecting further on it, there seems to be a version of the anthromorphic principle at play here: the more 'they' are like us, the more comprehensible they will be and the ways they need to be like us seem to carry the seed of believing in god with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 18 Jun 11 - 06:58 AM

I think the problem with your theory Dave is that people do convert to and from atheism in their lifetimes. While I think some is cultural, it is nowhere near as simple as a society becoming more enlightened (in our case by science) with (it can be expressed in these sort of terms - not pointing at you here) some ill educated backward people resistant new ideas. CS Lewis has been mentioned in this thread.

On a more personal level, I'd say the most scientifically qualified person I know scientifically is a phd microbiologist. If scientific enlightenment was the sole factor, I would think he would have to be in the certainly no God camp but he is of the opinion that there is another factor/dimension/something else.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: DMcG
Date: 18 Jun 11 - 05:17 AM

Not sure about yawnworthy myself, but probably for different reasons to Jon.

Considering what aliens (who might not exist) have in the way of intelligence (which may not exist, or even more likely not exist in a way we recognise) may or may not believe in (which is again further to caveats) is, frankly, a perilous activity. But, ok, I'll be foolish and leap in.

Most alien life will be of a form that we do not recognise as reflective. I would hazard a guess that daffodils on Earth do not see a need to consider the existance of God, but their form of intillegence, if it exists, is so unrecognisably different to mine that the question approaches meaninglessness. So let's restrict ourselves to intelligence that is self-reflective, i.e. capable of asking the 'why am I here?/Has life a purpose?' questions with answers other than things like 'To serve my hive/society' . It seems to me most likely that asking those question necessarily preceed any formal approaches to answering them, which have examples such as 'science' and 'philosophy' in our world.   And the simplest answer without those is 'there must be something/someone in charge'. So, on the basis of no evidence and very little data I would speculate that any form of life which we would recognise as intelligent and self-reflective and has any sort of progression in its society would have believed in a god or gods at some stage.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 18 Jun 11 - 04:26 AM

"[snip] of God - or have never seen the need to invent one?

Yawn."

Why is that yawnworthy, Jon?

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 17 Jun 11 - 11:17 PM

1) How do we know that the Creator is not a flying spaghetti monster?

One very visible indicator is that you would not feel an uncontrollable urge to make such remarks over a "flying spaghetti monster".

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Jun 11 - 10:30 PM

1) How do we know that the Creator is not a flying spaghetti monster? We don't...but Occam's razor says that's too complicated an answer. Ummm.. it further might say that just positing a 'creator' is making too many assumptions.

2) If we are going to "believe in" the Bible, how do we know which version to choose to believe in? Whatever Daddy believed in is the usual answer.
3) Wouldn't such a choice have to have some reasons for it? There ARE reasons....as in "Daddy said so"
4) Wouldn't those reasons want to be factual? The answer I keep hearing is that "In religion, the kind of facts you refer to aren't available. We must look to other sources of enlightenment. Open your heart, and you will see." Sounds 'slippery', but such answers are presented quite seriously.


Sadly, most of your questions are just dismissed by those who never ask such questions.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: saulgoldie
Date: 17 Jun 11 - 08:57 PM

Since we have wandered into the realm of religion, I have a couple of questions.

1) How do we know that the Creator is not a flying spaghetti monster?

2) If we are going to "believe in" the Bible, how do we know which version to choose to believe in? (Oooh, didja see that, folks? He said, "choose!")
3) Wouldn't such a choice have to have some reasons for it?
4) Wouldn't those reasons want to be factual?

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: Penny S.
Date: 17 Jun 11 - 06:47 PM

Here's a page which discusses Lewis' views on the issue of evolution. As I still don't think that someone, however brilliant a thinker I acknowledge him to be, who has not studied the science, is not really entitled to be regarded as a major source of information on it, I don't put this forward as something I would necessarily support, anyway. But it does not justify Pete's argument.

Lewis and evolution

And another:


Further discussion

And correspondence on the subject with a creationist.


Acworth letters

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Jun 11 - 06:35 PM

The thing is, when one has a position and beliefs that can't BE questioned, certain answers to hard questions are automatic. It saves time and argument, whether it is 'true' or not.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Jun 11 - 06:32 PM

The question "what was there before God?" just is too hard to contemplate.... it's difficult to even know how to approach it, so most religious folks just state that ' God has always been there', with no concern for where or what 'there' is. It "answers" all they feel needs answering...

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Jun 11 - 05:58 PM

And man created God in his own image, of course.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 17 Jun 11 - 05:53 PM

[snip] of God - or have never seen the need to invent one?

Yawn.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 17 Jun 11 - 05:45 PM

So, Jon and pete - obvious question - if God is our Creator, who or what created God? Is there an infinite regression i.e. does the Creator's Creator have a Creator etc., etc.? Remember that any answer that you give to this question (apart from "I don't know") will be speculative and, according to pete, speculation is some sort of sin.

Another question: Modern astronomy is revealing that many stars in our Galaxy have planets (a fact not revealed in the Bible, by the way). It could be that, at some point in the near future, an Earth-like world will be discovered - and even an Earth-like world with an intelligent species with which we can communicate. What are you going to do, Jon and pete, if it turns out that those aliens have never heard of God - or have never seen the need to invent one?

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 17 Jun 11 - 05:14 PM

OK,Pete, I'll try in brief. I've never really been able to accept the Genesis creation as a literal word for word account. I can wonder about things including God using genetic engineering... but I've never reached I suppose a position of being even close to satisfied with my thinking on this one. What/however though, I do firmly believe that God is our creator.

I've not read any texts teaching creationism outside the bible.

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 17 Jun 11 - 05:00 PM

hi again penny.
i wish i knew how to do the blue clicky thing and send out long articles!i did read most of your link and it seems to me the usual evolutionary confusion of speculative origins science with natural selection[known by creationists before darwin !]
i do not have the info to hand,but i understand that bad backs used to be treated according to ape ancester theory and done damage in the process.by contrast a creationist prof had success by not following that idea.idont think thats the only example either.

i cited cs lewis re the term





evolutionism .he was a philosophy prof as well i believe
but i will give you another scientist rejecting evlutionism.in the current "creation"mag dr jim mason explains the flaws/limitations of radiometric dating techniques.this is wihin his field of expertise.

jon.
i think science is right also-operational science,but not untestable origins.
as a fellow believer,i would wonder how you read texts that teach creationism,if unlike penny you do accept all the bible as trustworthy.thats a query rather than a criticism.
pete

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 17 Jun 11 - 02:36 PM

Ringer-
Go read the original journal articles. Never stop at the seondary citations on any web page or in any book or article.
Have you ever read any journal articles on climate science?
Peer-reviewed journal articles in actual scientific journals?
Can you provide me with the citation for even one? Okay, don't bother, I am giving you one.

You are correct, one can play the duelling URL game forever.
How about we play the duelling science game?

Read this article, then tell me your arguments with it, and/or find me another original source that contradicts it.
Go...

http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: Penny S.
Date: 17 Jun 11 - 11:53 AM

I suppose that the match between CO2 increase, temperature increase, and the increase in industrial activity is not evidence of anthropogenic warming, then, but mere coincidence.

The outcome, if we do nothing, and it is anthropogenic, doen't bear thinking of.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: Ringer
Date: 17 Jun 11 - 11:17 AM

Why should we believe Skeptical Science Basic Answers, TIA, rather than (for example) Watts Up With That? Skeptical Science is a well-known warmista site (and I acknowledge that WUWT may not be entirely impartial). So unless we trade cites/sites forever (which I decline to do) we have to make up our minds on other criteria.

Your quotation has at least one apparent inconsistency: "In fact, as temperature recording has improved in coverage, it's become apparent that ... global temperature trends were in fact relatively steady during the period prior to 1970." The implication is that improved temperature-recording post 1970 has showed that temperature-recordings pre 1970 were misleading. How does that work then? I'm not saying it's wrong, but it needs explanation at least.

Also, your quote concludes, "...we've reached a clear scientific consensus: 97% of working climate scientists agree with the view that human beings are causing global warming."

Ah, the ad populum logcal fallacy (and that apart from the fact that science is never "settled" - new findings tomorrow may completely overturn today's consensus). In today's zeitgeist, research funding is unavailable unless "AGW" appears in the application. What a surprise, then, that almost all "working climate scientists" support AGW, when all the others are no longer working because they can't get funding.

Governments like the implications of AGW: they can put up taxes, crying, "but it's green! green!" and if governments like anything more than controlling what we do it's spending our money. The cash they pour into climate research (but only for those projects which don't rock the AGW boat) makes any research money spent by big oil look like small change. Then there's all that money to be made by trading carbon credits...

I don't think that there's any evidence that climate change is significantly affected by human activity. I make this prediction: in 10 years from now AGW will be remembered only as a historical curiosity. I have made predictions on this site before: 11 years ago I predicted that the euro would fall apart within five years. I was wrong on the timescale, admittedly; but, given the situation in Greece, would anyone bet on the euro being around for another decade? (Sorry: I'm conflating two different hobby-horses.)

Subject: RE: BS: Science under attack.
From: Penny S.
Date: 17 Jun 11 - 06:31 AM

Some comments on practical applications

OK, biassed site, but so are those opposing this view.

Penny