Gay Patriot Header Image

On global warming, “The science is settled . . .

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 9:54 pm - November 29, 2009.
Filed under: Climate Change (Global Warming),Science

 . . . er, at the bottom of that dumpster.”  

So, sayeth Jim Treacher (via Instapundit).

(His trenchant commentary on this piece of news: “SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.“)

Share

64 Comments

  1. Love this quote from the UK….
    “Let me get this right. We have Leonardo’s and Tycho Brahe’s notebooks from the sixteenth century, Newton’s notebooks from the seventeenth, and we have Darwin’s notebooks from the nineteenth century, but CRU threw away all their climate data, already on magnetic tape, because it was “taking up too much room”?
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece

    The global warming fraud artists should be tried and forced to give back all the millions in research money.

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — November 29, 2009 @ 10:29 pm - November 29, 2009

  2. Oh Oh, As I suspected the liberal Democrats are fiddling with a lot more than global warming statistics.
    The scam and flim flamming may also include Obamas unemployment stats. I’m not sure we can trust any of the numbers coming out of this administration. Looking for more whistle blowers.
    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mike-bates/2009/11/29/headlines-jobless-claims-plunge-dive-plummet-decline-sharply-did-they

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — November 29, 2009 @ 10:33 pm - November 29, 2009

  3. I’m not sure we can trust any of the numbers coming out of this administration.

    I am. You can’t. They have also lied about the stimulus, cash for clunkers, their fascist health care trojan horse…. indeed, you can trust that whatever they say, it is most likely a lie.

    Comment by American Elephant — November 29, 2009 @ 10:50 pm - November 29, 2009

  4. er, at the bottom of that dumpster.

    Sorta like the American Community Organizers for the Registration of Necro-proxies and the American Criminal Liberals Union.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 29, 2009 @ 11:50 pm - November 29, 2009

  5. So, we are allowed to mistrust the scientific community when it comes to global warming, but we are supposed to absolutely trust them when it comes to evolution? If this headline read, “Evolution–The science is settled. . .” everyone would agree and only idiots would say the science isn’t settled, right? Because scientists are always, always trustworthy, right?

    How is the science of intelligent design different from the science of archaeology? Why do archaeologists assume that Stonehenge is a human artifact? Why isn’t it just a unique stone outcropping? There is no evidence, not one little thing, that suggests humans were involved in the building of Stonehenge–except the appearance of design. If it’s OK to see design in Stonehenge, why is it not OK to see design in a cell–which is a lot more complex?

    Comment by Ashpenaz — November 30, 2009 @ 12:21 am - November 30, 2009

  6. Ash, there is evidence of fraud in climate science; that’s a pretty good reason to distrust their findings. While there is no evidence of fraud in archaeology or biology, just incomplete information that others are trying to pass off as settled science. With natural selection its not a matter of trying to disprove claims they have made, only pointing out that the claims they make are conjecture, not supported by the evidence.

    Comment by American Elephant — November 30, 2009 @ 1:08 am - November 30, 2009

  7. Before we get into evolution vs creationism vs global warming, I think that we need to define what each portion of science is trying to tell us.

    First of all, I do not believe in Creation Science, and for a very good reason. I am Catholic, and although I accept Scripture as the Word of God, I do not accept the literal translation only approach to the interpretation of Scripture. Creation Science is based upon a literal interpretation of Scripture. In other words it interprets the 7 days as a literal 7 24 hour periods and this is what I find unacceptable. From what I understand about Intelligent Design, it takes a more middle of the road approach to this question. I have yet to see any texts on Intelligent Design but from what I have heard it is not the same as the literal Creation Science (which is not science at all).

    Now there are two strands to evolution, for one strand is that which is obvious due to what we observe in the world, that creatures and plants etc. evolve. There is sufficient evidence to prove that the earth has been around for millions, if not billions of years. The most obvious proof is that of fossil fuels – carbon is a good example: from trees we get carbon, diamonds, oil and natural gas (I think). The cycle begins with a tree that dies and is left on the forest floor, then over time it becomes carbon, which then becomes coal, and in a much older state becomes diamonds, as well as oil….. thus the production of oil is an evolutionary process. Other examples are:

    1) the interbreeding of species to create a new specie in the animal and the plant world. This happens regularly amongst bird breeders for example, as well as with dog and cat breeders etc. etc.

    2) the Australian Platypus is a good example of a creature from the past. It is a mammal.

    Personally, I have not trouble in accepting evolution with regards to the formation of the earth, and I can actually see how it ties in with Genesis because I accept a non-literal understanding of Genesis which means I see the night turning into morning etc as explaining “epochs”, “eras”, but not a literal 24 hours.

    The other strand of evolution is Darwinism. It is Darwinism that is so difficult to accept, and so far the scientists have not been able to prove Darwin’s theory. Not even Lucy helps Darwinism to be correct theory.

    It was Bill Clinton, in 1997 who said that the science regarding man-made global warming was settled. However, that was a lie at the time. In fact there were thousands of scientists who disagreed with the small clique responsible for the 1996 IPCC report. One of the scientists wrote an article for the WSJ regarding the fact that the documents that were presented for peer-review for this report were tampered with prior to publishing but after the peer review, such that the dissenting opinions were removed.

    There has been one long massive cover-up on this subject, and one massive attempt to silence the thousands of scientists who do in fact disagree that there is evidence of man-made global warming. These scientists are now getting the opportunity to be heard.

    Comment by straightAussie — November 30, 2009 @ 2:58 am - November 30, 2009

  8. sA, pretty good comment.

    Evolution is a fact; scientists have observed it in real time with new strains of microorganisms, for example. And, while estimates of the Earth’s age are only estimates, and so they vary, estimates of the Earth being billions of years old are far more plausible, i.e., fit a vast array of scientific facts far better, than estimates of the Earth being only a few thousands of years old or having been created in a near-complete state, ex nihilo.

    Having said that: there are gaps and arguments aplenty in all areas of science, including evolutionary theory. One could certainly speculate that the hand of God plays a role in evolution. But such speculation simply isn’t science, because the word “science” refers to a particular method, centered on hypothesis testing. Assertions of religious belief are not testable hypotheses. That doesn’t mean they’re untrue; it simply means that to the extent their proponents attempt to call them “science”, they are being dishonest or at least inaccurate.

    Long story short: science and religion needn’t conflict. But let’s let religion be religion, and let science be science.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 30, 2009 @ 3:45 am - November 30, 2009

  9. (continued) They are fundamentally different animals, because they use different methods. (Hypothesis testing, vs. faith / religious experience.)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 30, 2009 @ 3:52 am - November 30, 2009

  10. If this headline read, “Evolution–The science is settled. . .” everyone would agree and only idiots would say the science isn’t settled, right?

    Personally, I would find the headline too vague and would ask, what do you mean by ‘evolution’? What is it, exactly, that you are trying to assert as ‘setted’?

    Again, evolution in the broadest sense – a general process or tendency that species exhibit across generations, toward mutation and better adaptation to their environment – is an observed fact. If you wanted to attempt a wholesale denial of that, then yeah, you would pretty much be an idiot. It would be like denying gravity. But ‘evolution’ in some far narrower sense that you may have in mind, e.g. strict Darwinian theory, may not only be unsettled, it may already be disproven in some respects (and replaced by new forms of evolutionary theory). And real scientists would acknowledge that.

    How is the science of intelligent design different from the science of archaeology?

    Even archaeology forms hypotheses and tests them against the available evidence. Does ID? To the extent that it does so, honestly and consistently, then it’s science. To the extent that it doesn’t – to the extent that it engages in special pleading, or says things that can never be tested, proven or disproven – then it isn’t science.

    Note that in practice, AGW *does not* form hypotheses and test them against the available evidence, honestly and consistently. That is what makes AGW dogma, not science.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 30, 2009 @ 4:22 am - November 30, 2009

  11. I don’t believe in “Creation Science.” I believe in Intelligent Design. I believe evolution is a fact, insofar as we can observe species already in existence adapting to new environments. We have never observed a new species coming into existence through natural selection. We have never seen an inorganic molecule become an organic molecule through natural selection.

    There is no proof that Stonehenge was built by humans. There is no proof that the first cell came into being through natural selection. If archaeologists can claim to be scientists when there is no way to prove their assertions, why can’t those scientists who assert intelligent design (for instance, Francis Collins, the scientist who mapped the human gene)?

    Here’s a link to Stephen Meyer’s Signature in the Cell. Look at his credentials. Look at his nifty little video. Then see what you think:

    http://www.signatureinthecell.com/

    Comment by Ashpenaz — November 30, 2009 @ 9:48 am - November 30, 2009

  12. Oh and it gets more interesting. Per the Daily Mail The BBC received some of the mails more than a month ago and did nothing.

    (H/T Jonah Goldberg)

    To quote Mark Stein: If you follow online analysis from obscure websites on the fringes of the map, you’ll know what’s going on. If you go to the convenience store and buy today’s newspaper, you won’t.

    Oh Tano boy… your lies, your lies, are calling…

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 30, 2009 @ 10:29 am - November 30, 2009

  13. I’m drawn to Ash’s comment that there’s no evidence that Stonehenge was built by humans. What?! No only have archaeologists recovered hand-axes, weapons and funerary offerings next to the stones, there are also pick-marks and holes dug where stones fell down, drag-marks from the area to the stone circle, burials of warriors with tools directly linked to the stones and the fact it aligns with the sun, pretty much the most practical use for a stone circle back then. Then there’s the Bluestonehenge, the cursus, Durrington Walls…If Ash is trying to argue for or against the idea of total irrefutable truth then (not really) fair enough. Read the literature of David Hume. Who was not an advocate of intelligent design.
    Phew.

    Comment by Sean Williams — November 30, 2009 @ 10:43 am - November 30, 2009

  14. Sh-h-h-h-h-h!!! Tano is busy evolving.

    Comment by heliotrope — November 30, 2009 @ 10:59 am - November 30, 2009

  15. [...] Government and Bombshell: Obama Poised To Cede Sovereignty According To British Lord GayPatriot: On global warming, “The science is settled… and Climategate: ‘The Scandal Of The Century’ Ztower: President Outasync taking Global Warming [...]

    Pingback by Global Warming Scam: Scientific Data in “Hockey Stick” Graph Bogus, Uh, ‘Fudged’ (video) « Frugal Café Blog Zone — November 30, 2009 @ 11:21 am - November 30, 2009

  16. We have never observed a new species coming into existence through natural selection.

    I’d have to check on that. We’ve observed adaptation through mutation and selection. Speciation is when the adaptation progresses far enough that a cross-species pairing cannot produce fertile offspring. Someone was telling me the other day about the present state of evolution in some animal species along some large lake (might have been Tahoe?). I wish I could remember the details, starting with what animal. Anyway, there is a progression of genetic variation along the shore of the lake. If you take one from the north and the middle, or one from the south and the middle, they can still produce fertile offspring. But if you take one from the north and the south, enough variation has developed between them that they can’t produce fertile offspring. It was a fascinating story; sorry I can’t recall the identifying details.

    We have never seen an inorganic molecule become an organic molecule through natural selection.

    Of course, because you’re comparing apples and oranges. Molecules aren’t life forms, and in chemistry, “organic” refers only to whether a given compound has C (carbon).

    There is no proof that the first cell came into being through natural selection.

    When scientists lack proof, they have theory. Good theories explain the available facts, then yield predictions as to what “new” (i.e., undiscovered) facts should be; predictions which can be tested, proven or disproven. Does ID do that? You haven’t answered my question.

    If archaeologists can claim to be scientists when there is no way to prove their assertions, why can’t those scientists who assert intelligent design…?

    Because real science is about hypothesis testing, not assertions. Are you saying now that ID should be compared to archaeology, rather than to the science of biology? I misspoke earlier, in suggesting that archaeology was a science. I was thinking of archaeometry, which is a sub-discipline of archaeology, the latter technically being a “discipline” in the humanities, rather than a science like biology, physics, etc.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 30, 2009 @ 11:22 am - November 30, 2009

  17. Long story short: science and religion needn’t conflict. But let’s let religion be religion, and let science be science.

    AMEN!
    Can we go back to having real science again, skeptics and real proof, not just hypothesis?

    Comment by Leah — November 30, 2009 @ 11:32 am - November 30, 2009

  18. I would love to see some of these creeps go to jail. The fact is they received FOI requests and then knowingly deleted the data being requested. That right there is enough to put these schmuks in jail.

    Comment by Tim — November 30, 2009 @ 1:27 pm - November 30, 2009

  19. I’ve asked before, why isn’t the media chasing ALGORE down the street shouting questions at him about this made up crap?

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — November 30, 2009 @ 1:31 pm - November 30, 2009

  20. About a month ago I saw on Chris Matthews
    he grilled a conservative legislator and to see if he was a “nutt” he started by asking…..”DO YOU BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION?”
    and “DO YOU BELIEVE IN MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING” it was his way of proving whether this person’s other opinions should be given any weight. Now we can turn the tables on lefitst liberal democrats.
    If they believe in the sham we can laugh and call them nutts and dismiss everyone of their other concerns. hehe

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — November 30, 2009 @ 2:21 pm - November 30, 2009

  21. [...] NewsBusters: ClimateGate’s Michael Mann Being Investigated By Penn State GayPatriot: On global warming, “The science is settled… and Climategate: ‘The Scandal Of The Century’ Gateway Pundit: “Hockey Stick” Graph Creator [...]

    Pingback by ClimateGate’s Lies and Deception to Hide the Decline: The Heat’s On, Dump the Data! « Frugal Café Blog Zone — November 30, 2009 @ 2:30 pm - November 30, 2009

  22. Ah, the latest “I can haz fraud” from the denialists. From the linked article: “The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.”

    So they normalized the data and kept it all. This is the big reveal that destroys climate change science? They know where they got it, they know how they normalized it, and they know all the numbers. This disproves their publications how?

    Comment by torrentprime — November 30, 2009 @ 2:41 pm - November 30, 2009

  23. Oh, and Tim, you’re wrong.
    “The fact is they received FOI requests and then knowingly deleted the data being requested.”
    “Jones was not in charge of the CRU when the data were thrown away in the 1980s, a time when climate change was seen as a less pressing issue.”
    So the conspiracy has the power to go back in time and control other people! Quite a set-up…

    Comment by torrentprime — November 30, 2009 @ 2:44 pm - November 30, 2009

  24. So they adjusted the data.

    run that through again talking points. They. Adjusted. The. Data.

    The original data is gone, poof, toast. We don’t know how it was modified, except that it just happened to be adjusted in a way that benefits them.

    From the article, TP
    “It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years. ”

    I assume your running a cold fusion reactor to power your house then, since there was no way to recreate the experiment that ‘proved’ cold fusion was possible?

    And TP, Phil Jones said that he’d delete data rather than let real scientists review it. That should tell you all you need to know.

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 30, 2009 @ 2:58 pm - November 30, 2009

  25. Damn TP…..they dumped the actual data and only kept the “adjusted date”. And in his e mails he said if anyone wanted to question their finding they would “destroy” the actual data. Grow up and smell the coffee dude. They even said they can’t explain away the last 10 years of findings, that prove a global COOLING while India and China have been spewing away!

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — November 30, 2009 @ 4:13 pm - November 30, 2009

  26. LW are these people just dense or what??
    Or do they like being fools?

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — November 30, 2009 @ 4:14 pm - November 30, 2009

  27. Gene & LW, talk about being in denial, TP takes the cake. Who was it that said, “You can fool some of the people all the time.”? Oh, that’s right Lincoln.

    Comment by Steven E. Kalbach — November 30, 2009 @ 4:31 pm - November 30, 2009

  28. I think it’s TP’s turn to get spanked today.

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 30, 2009 @ 4:32 pm - November 30, 2009

  29. Or do they like being fools?

    I don’t think leftists care how stupid they look as long as they push their agenda.

    The carousel of denial spins on.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 30, 2009 @ 5:44 pm - November 30, 2009

  30. I think they “normalized” the data the same way Tim Geithner normalized his tax returns.

    Bottom line, torrent, is that the evidence for man-caused global warming climate change has never been sufficient to justify the upending of our political and economic systems. This was true before the latest evidence of fraud*.

    Having an advanced degree in one of the hard sciences doesn’t imply virtue. Scientists are just as prone to temptation and herd mentality as anyone else. In this case, the political climate has been used to suppress the usual vetting that weeds out faulty hypotheses and conclusions.

    * Remember a couple of years back when James Hansend was discovered to have “recycled” September data in order to declare an October warmer than normal?

    Comment by SoCalRobert — November 30, 2009 @ 8:41 pm - November 30, 2009

  31. What scientist “throws away” data? And it may turn out to be irreplaceable data?????Come on.
    All we have left is the fiddled with data.
    Who are the boobs now.

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — November 30, 2009 @ 9:56 pm - November 30, 2009

  32. Can we say now the hockey stick graph has flatlined?

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — November 30, 2009 @ 9:58 pm - November 30, 2009

  33. torrentprime…you are either incredibly naive or just outright stupid. I was involved in a small experiment at the University of California in the late 70′s where we attempted to correlate an well know intelligence test to a extremely simple test given to hundreds of elementary students. The result – our test was close but not close enough to justify further testing. Had we proven a correlation, you can count on the fact that we would have kept all the data – so that our colleagues could verify our findings. I guess I should have told my Professor to forget about the data – the rest of the world would just have to “trust us.” Being Native American, I can tell you that the “trust us” scat handed to my collective people always ended in disaster. If the raw data cant be located, I am not taking “on faith” what people with ulterior motives are handing me.

    Comment by Duffy - Native Intelligence — November 30, 2009 @ 11:41 pm - November 30, 2009

  34. This is more that just about CO2 or warming. It’s about control.
    Check what this guy found in the e-mails…

    http://www.floppingaces.net/2009/11/28/the-conspiracy-of-the-centuries-reader-post/

    Comment by Jan — December 1, 2009 @ 1:36 am - December 1, 2009

  35. Say Tardo,

    Doncha think maybe it’s time to just abandon this global warmism charade and focus group the next Death du Jour?

    I mean, there’s plenty of stuff out there that’s actually killing people. If the left actually gave a rat’s ass about folks, they might pour some energy into MRSA. That’s something few people know about and is actually a real threat out there.

    Just something to think about. It may not be as sexy or as profitable, but it is a real danger.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 1, 2009 @ 6:24 am - December 1, 2009

  36. BTW, isn’t it interesting that they’ll investigate the hell out of Gate Crashergate but there’s no interest in investigating the global warmism fraud?

    No interest in investigating ACORN & Maobama’s ties to them.
    No interest in investigating the porkulus liberal slush fund hoax.
    No interest in investigating the ObamaCareless hoax.
    No interest in investigating the insurance coverage of illegals hoax.
    No interest in investigating the funding of abortion hoax.
    No interest in investigating the Bungling Bros. Obama & Holder Terrorist Circus.

    No interest in investigating the “jobs saved or created” hoax.
    No interest in investigating the Government Motors hoax.
    No interest in investigating the “Cash for Clunkers” hoax.

    And as Yule Brenner would say “Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera!”

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 1, 2009 @ 6:35 am - December 1, 2009

  37. No, they haven’t found anything which shows that Stonehenge was the result of human design. What handaxes? The mystery of Stonehenge is that it predates everything in the area. Why couldn’t it just be a stone outcropping that people used for worship?

    You didn’t follow the link and look at the video, did you? There is much in the cell which is much more complex than a handax.

    Comment by Ashpenaz — December 1, 2009 @ 7:37 am - December 1, 2009

  38. Ash, what is #37 in response to? Clearly not anything I’ve said. Whom are you talking to?

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 1, 2009 @ 9:59 am - December 1, 2009

  39. #13.

    When you, ILC, say that science produces testable theories, how, exactly, can you test for the first appearance of a cell in history? That is an even in history and not reproducible. Saying that “The cell is a result of the forces of natural selection” can’t be a scientific statement any more than “At Waterloo, Napoleon surrendered” (or the corollary “and I have met my destiny in quite a similar way”).

    Also, since when in archaeology not a science? or SETI, the search for extra-terrestrial life? If we get a series of signals from a star which happen to spell out “Send More Chuck Berry” in Morse code, don’t we assume an intelligence behind those signals? So, why wouldn’t finding design in a cell lead to the scientific assumption that there’s a designer?

    Comment by Ashpenaz — December 1, 2009 @ 12:57 pm - December 1, 2009

  40. When you, ILC, say that science produces testable theories, how, exactly, can you test for the first appearance of a cell *in history*?

    Emphasis added. Obviously you can’t; it was four billion years ago or whatever. So what? What’s your point?

    Saying that “The cell is a result of the forces of natural selection” can’t be a scientific statement

    Since “natural selection” refers to a process that could only ever kick in -after- the existence of cells and DNA: again, obviously so. So what?

    You seem to be having trouble with the lingo. “The cell is a result of the forces of natural selection” is linguistically silly. Likewise, at #11 “We have never seen an inorganic molecule become an organic molecule through natural selection” was was a wrong use of the language, since chemical processes like a compound gaining or losing a carbon atom (thus becoming organic or inorganic) are in a completely different domain than the domain of terms like “natural selection”.

    since when in archaeology not a science?

    Ever since it was a discipline of the humanities, relying purely on inference and argument rather than hypothesis testing.

    why wouldn’t finding design in a cell lead to the scientific assumption that there’s a designer?

    If you ever find design in a cell, great. Knock yourself out. However, “design” is often in the eye of the beholder. Scientists have made considerable progress in the lab toward showing how cells arose spontaneously. They haven’t made a complete demonstration yet, but they have demonstrated some of the key pieces; for example, how and why the lipid walls of the first cells would have self-assembled. Now, you could argue that *that* (spontaneous assembly of certain molecules into something interesting) is design. Fine. Knock yourself out. But what is the scientific, as opposed to religious, value of it? Science would ask: what specific qualities would your designer possess, and what testable hypotheses can we derive, to give evidence for or against the existence of that designer, possessing those qualities? Anything else is religion.

    I say again, hoping you will absorb it: real science is about hypothesis testing, making it a different animal from disciplines which depend on inference/argument alone, or on faith, etc. Science and religion needn’t conflict, but let’s let religion be religion, and let science be science.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 1, 2009 @ 4:00 pm - December 1, 2009

  41. Oh, and I ask my question again (since you still haven’t answered it):

    Good [scientific] theories explain the available facts, then yield predictions as to what “new” (i.e., undiscovered) facts should be; predictions which can then be tested, proven or disproven. Does ID do that?

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 1, 2009 @ 4:21 pm - December 1, 2009

  42. Yes. Stephen Meyer spends the last chapters of his book making predictions based on the design theory. You’ll just have to follow the link.

    If, in fact, scientists produce a cell in a laboratory, it would prove Intelligent Design. Because, well, the cell was produced by SCIENTISTS in a LABORATORY. Such an experiment would prove that cells only emerge if a designer is in control of the process. If you put throw a bunch of molecules on a table and a cell emerges spontaneously, call me.

    Comment by Ashpenaz — December 1, 2009 @ 7:24 pm - December 1, 2009

  43. P. S. You haven’t shown me how you know that Stonehenge isn’t simply a stone outcropping which people used for worship.

    Comment by Ashpenaz — December 1, 2009 @ 7:25 pm - December 1, 2009

  44. Stephen Meyer spends the last chapters of his book making predictions based on the design theory.

    Testable ones? Such as what? Example, please.

    If, in fact, scientists produce a cell in a laboratory, it would prove Intelligent Design. Because, well, the cell was produced by SCIENTISTS in a LABORATORY.

    But you still haven’t said what you mean by ID, that is, who is the designer and with what specific qualities, and what testable predictions it leads to.

    If the scientists were manufacturing a designer cell for some specific use, like a new crop – well, duh. What a trivial observation to make.

    On the other hand, if the scientists merely re-created natural conditions in the lab in a successful attempt to show that natural conditions lead to self-assembly of enclosed lipid bilayers, of proteins, of RNA and DNA, etc. – which BTW and again, natural conditions can – then it would show the possibility that enclosed lipid bilayers, proteins, RNA, DNA, can assemble themselves naturally, and so might lead naturally to very primitive editions of what we now know as “cells”. If you want to argue that *that* shows ID, knock yourself out. But admit that you are now in the realm of philosophy / religion.

    You haven’t shown me how you know that Stonehenge isn’t simply a stone outcropping which people used for worship.

    You mean I should have to? Yikes. Tell you what, Ash. If you want to believe Stonehenge is a natural outcropping, you go ahead and do that.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 1, 2009 @ 7:45 pm - December 1, 2009

  45. [...] of the science don’t matter, let’s make her the Flat Earth Czar. GayPatriot: On global warming, “The science is settled… and Climategate: ‘The Scandal Of The Century’ Patterico’s Pontifications: East Anglia [...]

    Pingback by ClimateGate Fraud Phil Jones Slinks Away in Disgrace from CRU… Should Be Tossed into Jail for His Global Warming Hoax « Frugal Café Blog Zone — December 1, 2009 @ 10:13 pm - December 1, 2009

  46. “scientists recreated natural conditions”–do you see the contradictions in that phrase? In other words, those conditions can’t exist unless someone creates them. The Anthropic Principle shows that the chances that the universe would have been so finely tuned and filled with the right materials so a cell could emerge is, well, astronomical.

    As to Meyer’s predictions, you might, I don’t know, skim through the book? Look at his little video?

    I think it’s probably insane to believe that Stonehenge is a natural outcropping, just as it is insane to think a cell “just happened.”

    Comment by Ashpenaz — December 2, 2009 @ 8:57 am - December 2, 2009

  47. I think it’s probably insane to believe that Stonehenge is a natural outcropping, just as it is insane to think a cell “just happened.”

    Ashpenaz, I agree with both. Stonehenge obviously was created by humans. I think that’s a fairly safe assumption. Since no one alive today actually witnessed it, I suppose that there is that very slightest possibility that humans did not create it.

    And I don’t ever recall a scientist saying that a cell “just happened.” I believe one theory is a bunch of organic molecules (of which there are plenty) got together, and somehow organized. And gradually, over time, one-celled organisms developed with various stages of prototypes leading to it.

    Evolution is a fact. What is not a fact is the various details, such as when humans diverged from other great apes from a common ancestor, or exactly how life did begin. God may have done all this. But the question is still how this all happened.

    Comment by Pat — December 2, 2009 @ 9:26 am - December 2, 2009

  48. As for the global warming, I’m still middle of the road on this issue. I think it’s unfortunate, and stupid, that the original data was erased. For one thing, if there is a consensus of scientists that really believe GW is real, then this gives its critics a lot of ammunition.

    As a possible analogy, my belief is that OJ Simpson murdered his ex-wife and companion. The fact that the LAPD made some sloppy analysis, with the suggested planting of evidence, didn’t change the fact there was plenty of clear evidence leading to his conviction. However, the bad mistakes did have enough people question all the evidence.

    That’s exactly what COULD be happening here. Even if there is still overwhelming evidence that manmade GW is happening, these scientists blew it, and it’s going to take time to get their credibility back. You would think that if things will be bad as they suggest, they would have done everything in their power to not undermine their own credibility.

    Comment by Pat — December 2, 2009 @ 9:36 am - December 2, 2009

  49. [...] of the science don’t matter, let’s make her the Flat Earth Czar. GayPatriot: On global warming, “The science is settled… and Climategate: ‘The Scandal Of The Century’ Pundit & Pundette: Oopsy: Raw data gone Hot [...]

    Pingback by Shaky House of Cards… Australia Parliament Has Voted “NO” on Global Warming/Cap and Trade Bill « Frugal Café Blog Zone — December 2, 2009 @ 10:31 am - December 2, 2009

  50. “scientists recreated natural conditions”–do you see the contradictions in that phrase?

    Nope.

    those conditions can’t exist unless some*one* creates them

    Emphasis added, to highlight the question-begging. (Forcing a particular answer by assuming it to begin with.) It would be more accurate to say that some*thing* creates conditions for life and for the self-assembly of the various organic polymers it involves; and that something may or may not be automatic and impersonal, or may or may not believe / proclaim a particular religion.

    The Universe itself is one giant, continual creative process, Ash. Now is that creative process God? If so, what kind of God? And how much intention is required for the Universe’s creative process, and what is the mechanism by which it is implemented? Those are all perfectly fair questions – and they are questions for philosophy / religion to answer. Unless they yield testable predictions, they simply aren’t scientific questions.

    As to Meyer’s predictions, you might, I don’t know, skim through the book? Look at his little video?

    This is a blog discussion, Ash. When I’ve been in the same situation in the past – that is, wanting to quote a book or video – I’ve kindly transcribed / provided quotations from said book or video. Golly, you think that’s a possibility?

    I think it’s probably insane to believe that Stonehenge is a natural outcropping, just as it is insane to think a cell “just happened.”

    Well, let’s put it this way.

    - Stonehenges don’t happen in nature.
    - Whereas cells happen in nature all the time. Your own body has at least 1,000,000,000,000 of them. Imagine that.

    It would indeed be insane to believe Stonehenge is natural. While for cells, the reverse is true: It would be insane if anyone seriously believed that cells aren’t natural. The real question is: what is involved in “natural”? How much of “natural” shows the hand of what designer, having what specific nature, characteristics and purposes? Intellectually honest people answer those questions with philosophy or religion. They don’t try to dress up their answers as an altogether different tool – actually quite a specialized and limited tool, a surprisingly poor choice for the scope of the questions involved – namely, as science.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 2, 2009 @ 10:35 am - December 2, 2009

  51. And I don’t ever recall a scientist saying that a cell “just happened.” I believe one theory is a bunch of organic molecules (of which there are plenty) got together, and somehow organized.

    Pat, take an intro class or two sometime in cell biology. The “somehow” of how and why organic polymers assemble themselves in liquid media (water) is fascinating. And it involves the science of chemistry, with a brief digression into entropy theory (physics); but you needn’t go beyond high school chemistry and physics to get the picture. It’s amazing, regardless of one’s form of religion.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 2, 2009 @ 10:40 am - December 2, 2009

  52. One more thought. I think a lot of the ID-ness, the earlier “creation science”, etc. comes from the religious person’s lack of faith; their desire to have their own religious belief be a form of -knowledge- rather than faith.

    Faith is called “faith” for a reason. It isn’t knowledge. If we could see Jesus’ Resurrection on video, then it wouldn’t faith; faith would be quite unnecessary. Kierkegaard talked, rightly, about what I call the a-rationality of faith; that it is something outside rationality, a leap that the believer makes with fear and trembling. Some among the religious know enough to spout Kierkegaard when it suits them, yet in other contexts they want to justify their faith as a form of knowledge – as, for example, something validated by science.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 2, 2009 @ 10:59 am - December 2, 2009

  53. #48: “Even if there is still overwhelming evidence that manmade GW is happening, these scientists blew it, and it’s going to take time to get their credibility back.”

    No, Pat. These scientists didn’t “blow it.” They accepted millions of dollars in public grant money and engaged in a deliberate fraud, passing off their “scientific conclusions” as indisputable fact and suppressing dissent. These are not minor players in the climate science community–their “work” is the underlying basis for the efforts being made by international organizations to suppress American sovereignty and the basis for efforts being made by our own Congress to saddle our crippled economy with destructive regulations and to redistribute American wealth. (Not to mention the basis for Al Gore’s Oscar-winning film, An Inconvenient Truth.) The credibility of the ClimateGate scientists CANNOT be restored. They’re done. And the only way that the credibility of the rest of the climate science “community” can be saved is for its members to unequivocally and unanimously condemn the ClimateGate scientists, purge them from their ranks, and actively support harsh criminal and/or civil consequences for their transgressions. It already appears, however, that they will choose politics over science because Phil Jones has not been summarily fired, but instead has merely “stepped aside” to allow the investigation at Penn State to go forward. Translation: the “investigation” will be a whitewash, designed to exonerate the offenders and their politically-motivated assault on science.

    Comment by Sean A — December 2, 2009 @ 11:28 am - December 2, 2009

  54. Even if there is still overwhelming evidence that manmade GW is happening, these scientists blew it…

    Just to make it precise, my view is:
    - There is global warming.
    - Whether it’s man-made is another question, and a doubtful one.
    - Even if it’s man-made: eco-socialism cannot possibly be the right answer.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 2, 2009 @ 11:42 am - December 2, 2009

  55. Stonehenges happen in nature–Darwin showed that humans are simply part of nature. We are predestined by our chemicals to put up stone circles. We are not actually conscious–that’s an illusion. Stone circles that arise by erosion are just as much a natural phenomena put up by unconscious, random forces as Stonehenge. According to Dennett and Dawkins, at least.

    Here is a list of Meyer’s predictions based on ID in cells:

    Table 1. Predictions of Design:
    (1) High information content machine-like irreducibly complex structures will be found.
    (2) Forms will be found in the fossil record that appear suddenly and without any precursors.
    (3) Genes and functional parts will be re-used in different unrelated organisms.
    (4) The genetic code will NOT contain much discarded genetic baggage code or functionless “junk DNA”.

    Comment by Ashpenaz — December 2, 2009 @ 1:42 pm - December 2, 2009

  56. [...] of the science don’t matter, let’s make her the Flat Earth Czar. GayPatriot: On global warming, “The science is settled… and Climategate: ‘The Scandal Of The Century’ Pundit & Pundette: Oopsy: Raw data gone Hot [...]

    Pingback by Uh, Oh… Jon Stewart Mocks Al Gore and ClimateGate Liars (video) « Frugal Café Blog Zone — December 2, 2009 @ 2:43 pm - December 2, 2009

  57. Pat, take an intro class or two sometime in cell biology. The “somehow” of how and why organic polymers assemble themselves in liquid media (water) is fascinating.

    ILC, my knowledge of cell biology is limited. I don’t doubt what you are saying here. What I meant though was when cells first came into being, there was no one to make the conditions 100% ideal for cell formulation. In that sense, I don’t believe that scientists said that the first cells “just happened.” However, perhaps I’m wrong about that as well.

    Ashpenaz, I think you are trying to make a point here. If you are saying that if some natural random process such as evolution lead to humans, then similar random processes such as building Stonehenge are just as likely (or unlikely) to occur as Stonehenge being developed by erosion. Therefore, the only way a structure such as Stonehenge (as well as any construction today) could have happened is if humans came about through some Intelligent Design. I don’t buy it.

    Comment by Pat — December 2, 2009 @ 5:14 pm - December 2, 2009

  58. I say the Intelligent Design is *in* the randomness.

    Meyer’s predictions:
    (1) High information content machine-like irreducibly complex structures will be found. – STATUS: “Irreducible complexity” is in the eye of the beholder. In any given instance, you can make a case for it and a case against it.
    (2) Forms will be found in the fossil record that appear suddenly and without any precursors. – STATUS: This is inherent to examining the fossil record, which is necessarily incomplete, due to the difficulty and rarity of significant new finds. Also, the point is equally a prediction of some non-Darwinian evolutionary theories. Thus the point, even if true, resolves nothing in favor of ID.
    (3) Genes and functional parts will be re-used in different unrelated organisms. – STATUS: This is inherent to genetics and again predicted by evolutionary theory, as retroviruses carry genetic segments across species.
    (4) The genetic code will NOT contain much discarded genetic baggage code or functionless “junk DNA”. – STATUS: Disproven. The genetic code is famous for its long stretches of “junk DNA” – DNA whose patterns, presence, and relative (not total, but relative) uselessness are best explained by evolution and of a kind that any human designing a cell or species “from scratch” would leave out.

    Anyway… Minnesotans for Global Warming have a great new video:
    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/12/025064.php

    Enjoy! :-)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 2, 2009 @ 6:04 pm - December 2, 2009

  59. [...] each passing day evidence drips out showing more evidence calling into question the AGW theory.  The original data have been destroyed.  Other raw data haven’t been released.  AGW proponents have attempted to suppress the work [...]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Ma’am Tries to Change Climategate Narrative — December 3, 2009 @ 3:46 am - December 3, 2009

  60. [...] Gateway Pundit: White House Still Believes In Non-Existent Global Warming Gay Patriot: On global warming, “The science is settled… Sister Toldjah: ClimateGate fallout continues: CRU admits original data deleted American Power: [...]

    Pingback by Al Gore: I invented Global Warming after I invented the internet, right Jon Stewart? « VotingFemale Speaks! — December 3, 2009 @ 8:54 am - December 3, 2009

  61. [...] Nakedness of CLIMATE CHANGE: All That’s Wrong With Global Warming Advocates GayPatriot: On global warming, “The science is settled… and Climategate: ‘The Scandal Of The Century’ Pundit & Pundette: Scientism vs. science and [...]

    Pingback by The ClimateGate Show… Starring Obama’s Science Czar John Holdren (video) « Frugal Café Blog Zone — December 4, 2009 @ 9:35 am - December 4, 2009

  62. [...] Nakedness of CLIMATE CHANGE: All That’s Wrong With Global Warming Advocates GayPatriot: On global warming, “The science is settled… and Climategate: ‘The Scandal Of The Century’ Times Online: Climate change data dumped Mark [...]

    Pingback by ClimateGate Scandal Grows: Hollywood Academy Members Want Al Gore’s Oscar Rescinded « Frugal Café Blog Zone — December 4, 2009 @ 12:56 pm - December 4, 2009

  63. [...] Nakedness of CLIMATE CHANGE: All That’s Wrong With Global Warming Advocates GayPatriot: On global warming, “The science is settled… and Climategate: ‘The Scandal Of The Century’ Times Online: Climate change data dumped Mark [...]

    Pingback by Revolution at Hand: Man Crashes TV News Shot with Sign for Media to Report ClimateGate, Inhofe on CNBC (video) « Frugal Café Blog Zone — December 4, 2009 @ 5:34 pm - December 4, 2009

  64. [...] Nakedness of CLIMATE CHANGE: All That’s Wrong With Global Warming Advocates GayPatriot: On global warming, “The science is settled… and Climategate: ‘The Scandal Of The [...]

    Pingback by Mother Nature Mocks Global Warming Again… Record Early Snowfall in Houston & ClimateGate/Global Warming Info from Dr. Tim Ball and Dr. Roy Spencer, Ph.D. (video) « Frugal Café Blog Zone — December 6, 2009 @ 1:11 pm - December 6, 2009

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.