But really, is this news? Maybe you think I'm a troll, but we can't get better stuff to discuss than this?
It's interesting because it gives every psudoscientist out there a chance to say that mainstream science is wrong, and therefore there little theory is correct.
Don't get too cocky there bucko. Just because it's the dominate theory now, doesn't mean it will always be so. To give some credit to the "wailing" Creationists, at least they don't change their story when new "evidence" comes out.
Your right, one day evolution may be overthrown. Likewise the spherical earth theory, and cell theory may one day be replaced with a superior theory.
As for a theory adapting to fit evidence. That's a sign of science.
Of course, you have to identify which Creationists you are talking about.
Those that disbelieve in the theory of evolution. Some creationists believe that evolution is the tool that God used to create lifes diversity. I have no problem with these guys. Bottom line is the "evidence" for evolution does not convince me and a very many other people that it is fact.
That's fair enough. What you believe is upto you. Personally, I put myself firmly in the science camp.
When Darwin first proposed his theory it underwent extreme scrutiny by rhe scientific community. Have survived these attacks it has risen to become one of sciences greatest achievements, much to the concern of creationists and flat-earthers alike.
These finds are unrelated to the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is one of sciences most impressive theories which has withstood attacks both fair and foul. The basic theory doesn't rely on super nova's millions of years ago.
The theory of evolution doesn't have circular dependencies on the fossil record. That's just creationist wishful thinking.
When you mention errors in radiometric dating, do you refer to the unaccuracies that science knows and accounts for, or do you refer to delibrate misuse of radiometric dating by Steve Austin (the creationist, not the wrestler)?
If NDT was incorrect, the science behind this (ie. supernova ~2 million years ago killed off lots of marine life) would still stand.
Perhaps you should read the article (the scientific paper that is, not the CNN article) before dismissing it as "insultingly ludicrous."
The local bubble is thought to have formed approx. 10 million years ago, not 5-6 billion.
The paper also references works that show that the various subgroups which make up the Scorpius-Centaurus OB association, have produced plenty of supernova's in the past.
Re:Yeah! But try getting it to look as nice as LaT
on
Penguin2Apple
·
· Score: 1
Depends on your audience. If you're publishing in a scientific journal, which is my situation, chances are about 95% that LaTeX is the first choice for recieving submissions. Chances are also pretty good that they won't accept any formats other than TeX.
No insult towards LaTeX, but at least in chemistry journals (where I submit to), there is absolutely no way that they would accept TeX only
I will concede that Gentry has had papers published, however, his claims on creationism, haven't been. Rather the logical chain works like this: there are holes in rocks, therefore a young earth is correct. Sadly only the hole in rocks has been published in scientific journals (no claptraps such as Creation Ex Nihilo don't count).
Also, evolution doesn't break information theory, execept in the minds of creationists.
As for quoting out of context, that's a human failing that all sides of this have done; I don't see how that is strictly and only on one side.
If creationists had only misquoted sciences a few times, it could be dismissed as a accident, however given the huge numbers of misquotations by creationists, the only conclusions that I can come up with are that certain creationists are more than happy to lie to support their case.
While I would agree that creationists do a very poor job of reconciling the age of the earth with physical evidence (I should add a qualifer to this - not all creationists believe in a 6000 year old earth), I very strongly disbelieve your point about biologists.
Given that the vast majority of physicists and other information specialists support evolution (and that those who don't have nver published a peer reviewed scientific paper which catches evolution out), it seems resonable to suggest that the problems with evolution and information science lie in the heads of certain creationists, and nowhere else.
Also, given that Micheal Behe's examples of irreducible complexity, have been shown to be not irreducible, I would suggest that creationists should remain quite about these.
As for axes in Ordovician rocks and the like, until creationists can come up with a peer reviewed scientific paper on these, I will place them in the same basket as the Glen Rose footprints. Examples of creationist wishfull thinking.
It's only recently that creationists have sought to put their views on a firm scientific footing rather than just pointing at Genesis and screaming, "It's in there, so it must be true!!!" which convinces no one who's not already on their side.
Somebody mod this upto +5 funny. Creationists on a firm scientific footing... as if.
Have the creationists published a single scientific paper (I'm talking about one in a peer reviewed journal, not some website)?
Are they still going on about evolution breaking the 2nd law of thermodynamics?
Still quoting out of context to support their case?
There are some things they do a much better job of explaining then evolutionary biologists, but there are even more subjects on which they raise more questions than they answer.
This one doesn't. I'm quite impressed with New Scientist. Sure there are some errors in the articles, but nothing like what there is in the mainstream media.
A few skinned knees are MUCH more desirable than broken teeth cause some cop got jostled when he fired the rubber baton launcher.
Broken bones are a little bit worse than skinned knees. And just wait until somebody breaks their neck after slipping on residue the next day. Methinks I hear lawyers coming.
What I find interesting is the large amounts of water that the Odyssey is finding. A mars with a significant amount of water has the potential to be much more interesting than a mars without water.
If the Open Source crowd bitches and moans every time Microsoft comes up with a new feature that really is helpful (like this seems to be), they'll eventually stop adding new helpful features.
If Linux and BSD users complain about Microsoft products enough, will they really stop putting features into Windows?
Carbon monoxide production isn't directly related to carbon dioxide production. Carbon monoxide is produced when carbon is combusted with a limited amount of oxygen (such as the middle of trees), carbon dioxide, on the other hand, is produced when their is plenty of oxygen (such as most modern industrial processes).
Here are some facts http://www.earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/Na sa News/2002/200201317366.html
Tropical cloudiness decreased during the 1990s, and "greenhouse scientists" are at a loss as to why.
Orthodox greenhouse industry theory says - CO2 warms the oceans, which causes more evaporation, which puts more water vapour (the dominant greenhouse gas) into the atmosphere, and more clouds. (John Daly's words) Yet - there are less clouds, aren't there?
This is a straw man view of the scientific picture. Cloud formation is far more complicated than simple heating effects. Particles, air density etc play a massive role.
You may put weight where you like. The problem is, that most of the advertised work of many of these scientists is only the doom and gloom stuff. Which is why during the 1970s and 1980s, many of these scientific climatic organisations (especially American ones) are on the record as warning that the earth was about to go into another ice age.
Given that the "scientists" that I published are in fact scientific bodies (all of which are much much bigger than simply climatical science, I would be very surprised if they required "doom and gloom stuff".
The predicted ice ages, is also a piece of anti-science propaganda. See http://www.wmc.care4free.net/sci/iceage/ for details.
To think that all the scientists are in agreement is absolutely untrue, though that may be the impression you get from the media. That "the world is going to be ok" doesn't really make headlines.
Given the uncritical reviews of Bjørn Lomborg recently in the Australian media, I find this hard to believe.
Try this for size http://canberra.yourguide.com.au/detail.asp?clas s= your%20say&subclass=general&category=columnists%20 analysis&story_id=22575
This opinion piece by Larry Mounser, a self-proclaimed geophysicist (I did a search through the scientific lit. to see if he had published anything on the climate - all that I found that he hasn't published anything in the scientific lit. full stop), relies on the usually very weak argument (Antarctic ice etc), and is in direct conflict with positions adopted by scientific societies such as the American Geophysical Union.
Perhaps it's me, but it seems the only people that are objecting to the science are the ones whose incomes don't depend on it.
It's just you. I was taught about climate change by two different science departments, the lecturers involved derived none of their income from global warming.
There are only two readings across time in this deep sea experiment - one in the 1950s, and one more recently. The problem with that, as any grade 10 student could tell you - what happens if either of those two years were anomalous? What happens if 195x was really cold, and 200x was really hot?
Perhaps you should read the article itself rather than relying on the website of a pseudoscientist. The data collection was started in the 1930's. It wasn't until the 1950's that the average temperatures started to rise. Ten's of thousands of data points were collected.
And who's to say that the reading from the 1950s was at all accurate anyway? The temperature was taken between 700 and 1100 metres down!
The early data collection apparatus was tested against the modern data collection apparatus, and it was found that they gave statistically identical results. Once again, read the paper, not the pseudoscience.
I'd certainly like to see some of your links to suggest that satellite data has been re-examined. I never heard anything about it. Regardless, I wonder who/how re-examined it to prove it's suddenly got warmer. I'm skeptical.
I don't have a internet link. However, as a Canberra person, you can't be that far from ANU or UC, either of which should have the science journal Nature in their library. Check out Nature, vol 394, pages 615-616 (August 13, 1998). It's by Dian Gaffen, who is a NOAA scientist.
Sorry for being abrasive in this post, but you sound (or should it be read) like a smart person who has been taken in by some frauds peddling pesudoscience.
If we have a less protective ozone, would we be more likely to have extreme global warming/cooling?
Less ozone would lead to a very slightly warmer earth (because less UV light would be absorped in the atmosphere, leading to more on the earth's surface), but the effect would be, IMHO, very slight relative to other factors.
If you're basing "global warming" off anecdotal evidence, Canberra in Australia (where I live) has just had one of the coolest summers ever. The opposite of your experience. And please, don't try that b-s line on me that "global warming makes the extremes greater", because that's not global warming.
Err... you are aware that putting more water vapour into the atmosphere "makes the extremes greater". If anecdotal evidence is what we're looking for for, then Canberra's recent heavy rainfall should provide evidence of this.
But allow me to present the case against the global warming phenomenon.
1)
Do you have any evidence (peer-reviewed, of course) for this? Forgive my skeptism, but I would put more weight on the views of the Australian Academy of Sciences, Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts, Brazilian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Caribbean Academy of Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, French Academy of Sciences, German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina, Indian National Science Academy, Indonesian Academy of Sciences, Royal Irish Academy, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy), Academy of Sciences Malaysia, Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Turkish Academy of Sciences, and Royal Society (taken from a joint statement made in the journal Science), than the word of a slashdot poster.
2)
This point is just wrong. If you had have paid more attention to the link which you posted, you would find a section on measurements of temperture change in the deep sea Southern Ocean.
3)
This point ignores that loss of ozone will cause a temperture decrease in the upper atmosphere, and that the satellite data has been reexamined, and found to show a increase in the temperture.
4)
Could you please supply a citation for this. I'm interested to see how they seperated out cause and effect. I looked through your supplied link, and didn't see it.
5)
Negative feed back mechanisms have been known about for years, plant growth especially. This have been taken into account in the climatical models.
Slashdot Mirror
But really, is this news? Maybe you think I'm a troll, but we can't get better stuff to discuss than this?
It's interesting because it gives every psudoscientist out there a chance to say that mainstream science is wrong, and therefore there little theory is correct.
Don't get too cocky there bucko. Just because it's the dominate theory now, doesn't mean it will always be so. To give some credit to the "wailing" Creationists, at least they don't change their story when new "evidence" comes out.
Your right, one day evolution may be overthrown. Likewise the spherical earth theory, and cell theory may one day be replaced with a superior theory.
As for a theory adapting to fit evidence. That's a sign of science.
Of course, you have to identify which Creationists you are talking about.
Those that disbelieve in the theory of evolution. Some creationists believe that evolution is the tool that God used to create lifes diversity. I have no problem with these guys.
Bottom line is the "evidence" for evolution does not convince me and a very many other people that it is fact.
That's fair enough. What you believe is upto you. Personally, I put myself firmly in the science camp.
No, withstood is the correct way of putting it.
When Darwin first proposed his theory it underwent extreme scrutiny by rhe scientific community. Have survived these attacks it has risen to become one of sciences greatest achievements, much to the concern of creationists and flat-earthers alike.
A wee bit over 100 pc.
These finds are unrelated to the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is one of sciences most impressive theories which has withstood attacks both fair and foul. The basic theory doesn't rely on super nova's millions of years ago.
The theory of evolution doesn't have circular dependencies on the fossil record. That's just creationist wishful thinking.
When you mention errors in radiometric dating, do you refer to the unaccuracies that science knows and accounts for, or do you refer to delibrate misuse of radiometric dating by Steve Austin (the creationist, not the wrestler)?
If NDT was incorrect, the science behind this (ie. supernova ~2 million years ago killed off lots of marine life) would still stand.
Because all of a sudden, their fossils stopped appearing in the geological column.
There's always enough energy to get another beer.
Perhaps you should read the article (the scientific paper that is, not the CNN article) before dismissing it as "insultingly ludicrous."
The local bubble is thought to have formed approx. 10 million years ago, not 5-6 billion.
The paper also references works that show that the various subgroups which make up the Scorpius-Centaurus OB association, have produced plenty of supernova's in the past.
Depends on your audience. If you're publishing in a scientific journal, which is my situation, chances are about 95% that LaTeX is the first choice for recieving submissions. Chances are also pretty good that they won't accept any formats other than TeX.
No insult towards LaTeX, but at least in chemistry journals (where I submit to), there is absolutely no way that they would accept TeX only
Note that in the talkorigins reference you gave there is no mention of the studies in coal-ified wood
You should have looked through talk origins more carefully. This is a link to this page on coalified wood.
I will concede that Gentry has had papers published, however, his claims on creationism, haven't been. Rather the logical chain works like this: there are holes in rocks, therefore a young earth is correct. Sadly only the hole in rocks has been published in scientific journals (no claptraps such as Creation Ex Nihilo don't count).
Also, evolution doesn't break information theory, execept in the minds of creationists.
As for quoting out of context, that's a human failing that all sides of this have done; I don't see how that is strictly and only on one side.
If creationists had only misquoted sciences a few times, it could be dismissed as a accident, however given the huge numbers of misquotations by creationists, the only conclusions that I can come up with are that certain creationists are more than happy to lie to support their case.
While I would agree that creationists do a very poor job of reconciling the age of the earth with physical evidence (I should add a qualifer to this - not all creationists believe in a 6000 year old earth), I very strongly disbelieve your point about biologists.
Given that the vast majority of physicists and other information specialists support evolution (and that those who don't have nver published a peer reviewed scientific paper which catches evolution out), it seems resonable to suggest that the problems with evolution and information science lie in the heads of certain creationists, and nowhere else.
Also, given that Micheal Behe's examples of irreducible complexity, have been shown to be not irreducible, I would suggest that creationists should remain quite about these.
As for axes in Ordovician rocks and the like, until creationists can come up with a peer reviewed scientific paper on these, I will place them in the same basket as the Glen Rose footprints. Examples of creationist wishfull thinking.
It's only recently that creationists have sought to put their views on a firm scientific footing rather than just pointing at Genesis and screaming, "It's in there, so it must be true!!!" which convinces no one who's not already on their side.
Somebody mod this upto +5 funny. Creationists on a firm scientific footing... as if.
Have the creationists published a single scientific paper (I'm talking about one in a peer reviewed journal, not some website)?
Are they still going on about evolution breaking the 2nd law of thermodynamics?
Still quoting out of context to support their case?
There are some things they do a much better job of explaining then evolutionary biologists, but there are even more subjects on which they raise more questions than they answer.
Like what?
This one doesn't. I'm quite impressed with New Scientist. Sure there are some errors in the articles, but nothing like what there is in the mainstream media.
A few skinned knees are MUCH more desirable than broken teeth cause some cop got jostled when he fired the rubber baton launcher.
Broken bones are a little bit worse than skinned knees. And just wait until somebody breaks their neck after slipping on residue the next day. Methinks I hear lawyers coming.
What I find interesting is the large amounts of water that the Odyssey is finding. A mars with a significant amount of water has the potential to be much more interesting than a mars without water.
Some links:
CNN article
BBC article
Yet another article
Hopefully they are correctly intrepreting the data.
...it's a long way from something that works in the lab to a technology which can been used on a commercial scale.
Given that it's been published in one the best scientific journals, and that there is nothing unbelivable in it, I'd say that it isn't a joke.
If the Open Source crowd bitches and moans every time Microsoft comes up with a new feature that really is helpful (like this seems to be), they'll eventually stop adding new helpful features.
If Linux and BSD users complain about Microsoft products enough, will they really stop putting features into Windows?
Your basing your skeptism on a misconception.
Carbon monoxide production isn't directly related to carbon dioxide production. Carbon monoxide is produced when carbon is combusted with a limited amount of oxygen (such as the middle of trees), carbon dioxide, on the other hand, is produced when their is plenty of oxygen (such as most modern industrial processes).
A bit more on the urban heat island
t m)
http://wwwghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/urban/
It does exist, and you'd be amazed at how many weather stations are established in major cities.
I don't deny that it exists, nor whether or not it is studied, but rather whether it has been included in the montering of global tempertures.
According to CSIRO it has been. (http://www.dar.csiro.au/info/material/info98_3.h
Here are some factsa sa News/2002/200201317366.html
s s= your%20say&subclass=general&category=columnists%20 analysis&story_id=22575
http://www.earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/N
Tropical cloudiness decreased during the 1990s, and "greenhouse scientists" are at a loss as to why.
Orthodox greenhouse industry theory says - CO2 warms the oceans, which causes more evaporation, which puts more water vapour (the dominant greenhouse gas) into the atmosphere, and more clouds. (John Daly's words) Yet - there are less clouds, aren't there?
This is a straw man view of the scientific picture. Cloud formation is far more complicated than simple heating effects. Particles, air density etc play a massive role.
You may put weight where you like. The problem is, that most of the advertised work of many of these scientists is only the doom and gloom stuff. Which is why during the 1970s and 1980s, many of these scientific climatic organisations (especially American ones) are on the record as warning that the earth was about to go into another ice age.
Given that the "scientists" that I published are in fact scientific bodies (all of which are much much bigger than simply climatical science, I would be very surprised if they required "doom and gloom stuff".
The predicted ice ages, is also a piece of anti-science propaganda. See http://www.wmc.care4free.net/sci/iceage/ for details.
To think that all the scientists are in agreement is absolutely untrue, though that may be the impression you get from the media. That "the world is going to be ok" doesn't really make headlines.
Given the uncritical reviews of Bjørn Lomborg recently in the Australian media, I find this hard to believe.
Try this for size
http://canberra.yourguide.com.au/detail.asp?cla
This opinion piece by Larry Mounser, a self-proclaimed geophysicist (I did a search through the scientific lit. to see if he had published anything on the climate - all that I found that he hasn't published anything in the scientific lit. full stop), relies on the usually very weak argument (Antarctic ice etc), and is in direct conflict with positions adopted by scientific societies such as the American Geophysical Union.
Perhaps it's me, but it seems the only people that are objecting to the science are the ones whose incomes don't depend on it.
It's just you. I was taught about climate change by two different science departments, the lecturers involved derived none of their income from global warming.
There are only two readings across time in this deep sea experiment - one in the 1950s, and one more recently. The problem with that, as any grade 10 student could tell you - what happens if either of those two years were anomalous? What happens if 195x was really cold, and 200x was really hot?
Perhaps you should read the article itself rather than relying on the website of a pseudoscientist. The data collection was started in the 1930's. It wasn't until the 1950's that the average temperatures started to rise. Ten's of thousands of data points were collected.
And who's to say that the reading from the 1950s was at all accurate anyway? The temperature was taken between 700 and 1100 metres down!
The early data collection apparatus was tested against the modern data collection apparatus, and it was found that they gave statistically identical results. Once again, read the paper, not the pseudoscience.
I'd certainly like to see some of your links to suggest that satellite data has been re-examined. I never heard anything about it. Regardless, I wonder who/how re-examined it to prove it's suddenly got warmer. I'm skeptical.
I don't have a internet link. However, as a Canberra person, you can't be that far from ANU or UC, either of which should have the science journal Nature in their library. Check out Nature, vol 394, pages 615-616 (August 13, 1998). It's by Dian Gaffen, who is a NOAA scientist.
Sorry for being abrasive in this post, but you sound (or should it be read) like a smart person who has been taken in by some frauds peddling pesudoscience.
Why does the origin of carbon monoxide production make you skeptical of global warming?
If we have a less protective ozone, would we be more likely to have extreme global warming/cooling? Less ozone would lead to a very slightly warmer earth (because less UV light would be absorped in the atmosphere, leading to more on the earth's surface), but the effect would be, IMHO, very slight relative to other factors.
If you're basing "global warming" off anecdotal evidence, Canberra in Australia (where I live) has just had one of the coolest summers ever. The opposite of your experience. And please, don't try that b-s line on me that "global warming makes the extremes greater", because that's not global warming.
Err... you are aware that putting more water vapour into the atmosphere "makes the extremes greater". If anecdotal evidence is what we're looking for for, then Canberra's recent heavy rainfall should provide evidence of this.
But allow me to present the case against the global warming phenomenon.
1)
Do you have any evidence (peer-reviewed, of course) for this? Forgive my skeptism, but I would put more weight on the views of the Australian Academy of Sciences, Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts, Brazilian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Caribbean Academy of Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, French Academy of Sciences, German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina, Indian National Science Academy, Indonesian Academy of Sciences, Royal Irish Academy, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy), Academy of Sciences Malaysia, Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Turkish Academy of Sciences, and Royal Society (taken from a joint statement made in the journal Science), than the word of a slashdot poster.
2)
This point is just wrong. If you had have paid more attention to the link which you posted, you would find a section on measurements of temperture change in the deep sea Southern Ocean.
3)
This point ignores that loss of ozone will cause a temperture decrease in the upper atmosphere, and that the satellite data has been reexamined, and found to show a increase in the temperture.
4)
Could you please supply a citation for this. I'm interested to see how they seperated out cause and effect. I looked through your supplied link, and didn't see it.
5)
Negative feed back mechanisms have been known about for years, plant growth especially. This have been taken into account in the climatical models.