GOP may have Rush, Hannity and Levin moderate debates...

[billc]

What was that about the IPCC...

http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/06/22/un-ipcc-lead-author-global-warming-models-could-be-fundamentally-wrong/

UN IPCC Lead Author: Global warming models could be ‘fundamentally wrong’ Read the Full Article

Meteorologist Hans von Storch: 'If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models,' Storch told Der Spiegel. 'A 20-year pause in global warming does not occur in a single modeled scenario. But even today, we are finding it very difficult to reconcile actual temperature trends with our expectations.'
​

http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/08/21/consensus-police-climatologist-dr-judith-curry-reveals-scientists-trying-to-stifle-skeptical-research-scientists-strongly-encouraged-my-colleague-not-to-publish-this-paper-since-it-would/

‘Consensus police’: Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry reveals scientists trying to ‘stifle skeptical research’: ‘Scientists strongly encouraged my colleague NOT to publish this paper, since it would only provide fodder for the skeptics’

Curry: 'Last year, I encountered a stark example of this. One of my colleagues was thinking about publishing a paper that challenges the IPCC interpretation of the previous pause during the 1940s to 1970′s. My colleague sent a .ppt presentation on this topic to three colleagues, each of whom is a very respected senior scientist and none of whom have been particularly vocal advocates on the subject of climate change (names are withheld to protect the guilty/innocent). Each of these scientists strongly encouraged my colleague NOT to publish this paper, since it would only provide fodder for the skeptics. (Note: my colleague has not yet written this paper, but not because he was discouraged by these colleagues). What is at issue here is a conflict between the micro ethics of individual responsibility for responsible conduct of research and larger ethical issues associated with the well-being of the public and the environment. Most such examples are related to suppression of evidence including attempting to stifle skeptical research (particularly its publication and dissemination to the public); the Climategate emails provide abundant examples of this.'
​

Curry is the Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Also see: ‘Flashback 2010: ‘High Priestess of Global Warming’ No More! Former Warmist Judith Curry Admits To Being ‘Duped Into Supporting IPCC’ – ‘If the IPCC is dogma, then count me in as a heretic’

Excerpts from Dr. Judith Curry’s report on scientific intimidation in global warming research: (Via Tom Nelson)
When ‘Heartlandgate’ first broke, I saw no parallels with Climategate. Now, with the involvement of Gleick, there most certainly are parallels. There is the common theme of climate scientists compromising personal and professional ethics, integrity, and responsibility, all in the interests of a ’cause’.

…at the heart of the IPCC is a cadre of scientists whose careers have been made by the IPCC. These scientists have used the IPCC to jump the normal meritocracy process by which scientists achieve influence over the politics of science and policy. Not only has this brought some relatively unknown, inexperienced and possibly dubious people into positions of influence, but these people become vested in protecting the IPCC,

which has become central to their own career and legitimizes playing power politics with their expertise.

 

[Steve]

I never did. I suggested it be taught as an alternative in schools. Taught in science class since they already are charged with teaching the topic, To keep it easier for teachers and students so Mr Jones in social studies doesn't need to figure out what Mr Smith is teaching in science so they don't confuse the kids.

When you suggest that it be taught in a science class, ballen, you are calling it science. Kids won't be confused if you teach science in a science class and teach religion in a religion class. They WILL become confused if you teach religion in a science class. Of course, if the agenda is to create that very confusion in the minds of the students, you're on the right track. Teaching creationism in a science class will absolutely lead to students believing that it is an equivalent theory to evolution, which it is not. That's not educating, though. That's indoctrinating.

And, for what it's worth, Mr. Jones in Social Studies doesn't need to know what Mr. Smith is teaching provided both teachers stay in their lanes.

 

[granfire]

When you suggest that it be taught in a science class, ballen, you are calling it science. Kids won't be confused if you teach science in a science class and teach religion in a religion class. They WILL become confused if you teach religion in a science class. Of course, if the agenda is to create that very confusion in the minds of the students, you're on the right track. Teaching creationism in a science class will absolutely lead to students believing that it is an equivalent theory to evolution, which it is not. That's not educating, though. That's indoctrinating.

And, for what it's worth, Mr. Jones in Social Studies doesn't need to know what Mr. Smith is teaching provided both teachers stay in their lanes.

depending on their upbringing it will lead them to believe the teacher is a complete nutter.
And then what?
I had teachers that wore Russian type fur hats in winter, matching the rather Russian-centric curriculum they taught (Geography)
To this day it baffles me to learn the little creek by my mom's house actually has a name, but I remember vividly that it gets friggin cold in Sibiria...the teachers were laughed at behind their backs. Not exactly taken serious.

On the other hand, if the poor kids already believe in creationism...they might forget the one crucial principle of science: Question everything, look deeper. And here - again - is where faith and science don't mash.

 

[Steve]

I noticed that ballen, you're now choosing to use the term "blind faith." That's actually the opposite of science. I can kind of see where you're coming from when you talk about faith as a synomym for trust, and at some point we have to trust what we're being told, whether it's being told to us by a scientist, a teacher or a pastor. But "blind" faith suggests a lack of intellectual curiosity. It's a term I don't like to use for anything, including religion, because my experience is that most people do ask questions.

So, if you choose to accept your religion blindly, understand that science is the opposite of that. Faith may still be involved in science, but questions are encouraged, and the curiosity to see for oneself often leads to greater discoveries, which can be confirmed and repeated. Religion may encourage questions, but there is no means for accepting religion beyond faith.

 

[WaterGal]

Its not proof. We don't know where we came from. That whole missing link thing and all. If science can prove where we came from then show me. I'll make it easy. Forget showing me where humans came from. Where did the cell come from. One single cell. Where did the first one come from?

Here's a place to start:

http://www.amazon.com/Campbell-Biol...&sr=8-1&keywords=biology+campbell+9th+edition

 

[WaterGal]

Because when your teaching the where did man come from or evolution it would be silly to teach part of it in Science with Mr Jones and then he say well there is other parts to the story but you need to wait until you get to Mr Smith next semester to hear more. Its just easier to teach it all at the same time in the same place by the same teacher to the same kids.

Science and comparative religion are two entirely different subjects. By your reasoning, we should just teach every subject as one class taught by one teacher, since every subject has links to other subjects. Should we teach history during English class (or vice versa), because history deeply informs classical literature? Why should students have to wait until the next period or semester to read the Odyssey when they learned about ancient Greek history today?

 

[WaterGal]

Ive read it man. Ive studied Darwin I know he was freaked out by things like the eye and how it worked. He answer was well it just had to evolve from less effective eyes even if we cant prove it it just had to be that way. in evolution we all started from some single cell goo and poof a few billion years later and a few billion trial and errors and here we are. Of course there is no proof of this. There is no proof of where this Goo came from. But you can keep your blind faith and ill keep mine.

In the 50s, it was discovered that if you take water and the mix of gases found in the ancient Earth atmosphere, and zap it with electricity, all of the organic molecules (amino acids) that make up all living beings will form within a few weeks.

In the 60s, it was discovered that these amino acids, when heated, can spontaneously form into protein "protocells", which are basically like primitive cell membranes. They don't spontaneously contain genetic material, but do reproduce asexually.

In the 70s, it was discovered that a "primordial"-type mixture containing nucleotide bases will spontaneously form into self-replicating genetic material.

We don't have all the answers yet. We've only even known the structure of DNA for 60 years, and don't have millions of years to recreate natural conditions. But the things tested in these experiments don't need millions of years - they can happen in a very, very short time frame. So it's easy to see how, if these things happened over and over again over millions of years, these primitive self-replicating membranes and primitive self-replicating RNA might combine to form more complicated self-reproducing structures and even cells.

If you'd even taken a Biology 101 class at your local community college, you'd know all this.

 

[Flying Crane]

No we are saying that the Church is not afraid of science in fact they are very much involved in many scientific advances

So why is it that so many of the people who are deeply religious have such a fear of science, and want to teach things like the bible, or intelligent design, as science? That's just ignorant. But it keeps happening. If the church is not afraid of science (a statement that I believe is not entirely untrue) and the church is and has been involved with many scientific advances (another statement that I believe is not entirely untrue) then why are so many religious people so afraid of science and want to look to the bible as a historical document? Again, that's ignorant.

 

[ballen0351]

So why is it that so many of the people who are deeply religious have such a fear of science, and want to teach things like the bible, or intelligent design, as science? That's just ignorant. But it keeps happening. If the church is not afraid of science (a statement that I believe is not entirely untrue) and the church is and has been involved with many scientific advances (another statement that I believe is not entirely untrue) then why are so many religious people so afraid of science and want to look to the bible as a historical document? Again, that's ignorant.

its not a fear of science. you have your blind faith that the amino acid goo some how over billions of years turned into people yet you cant prove it. you cant show how the link from goo to human. But you believe it happened. Maybe it did, maybe it didnt. Maybe its all part of Gods plan to begin with maybe it wasn't. If you cant prove eactly what happened then why are you surprised that some choose a different version of truth then what you believe. Thats all this is who believes what since none of it is proven no matter how much you want to "believe" you have it all figured out you just dont...........

 

[ballen0351]

In the 50s, it was discovered that if you take water and the mix of gases found in the ancient Earth atmosphere, and zap it with electricity, all of the organic molecules (amino acids) that make up all living beings will form within a few weeks.

In the 60s, it was discovered that these amino acids, when heated, can spontaneously form into protein "protocells", which are basically like primitive cell membranes. They don't spontaneously contain genetic material, but do reproduce asexually.

In the 70s, it was discovered that a "primordial"-type mixture containing nucleotide bases will spontaneously form into self-replicating genetic material.

We don't have all the answers yet. We've only even known the structure of DNA for 60 years, and don't have millions of years to recreate natural conditions. But the things tested in these experiments don't need millions of years - they can happen in a very, very short time frame. So it's easy to see how, if these things happened over and over again over millions of years, these primitive self-replicating membranes and primitive self-replicating RNA might combine to form more complicated self-reproducing structures and even cells.

If you'd even taken a Biology 101 class at your local community college, you'd know all this.

Yep and then what happened? How did we get from primitive membranes to People? Oh wait we dont know. We have theories that we put our faith in but we have no real facts. thats the point we have no FACTS.

 

[ballen0351]

Science and comparative religion are two entirely different subjects. By your reasoning, we should just teach every subject as one class taught by one teacher, since every subject has links to other subjects. Should we teach history during English class (or vice versa), because history deeply informs classical literature? Why should students have to wait until the next period or semester to read the Odyssey when they learned about ancient Greek history today?

We are not talking about different subjects we are talking about one subject. The creation of man. One topic, one class, one time,

Oh and we did read parts of the Odyssey in History class

 

[Flying Crane]

its not a fear of science. you have your blind faith that the amino acid goo some how over billions of years turned into people yet you cant prove it. you cant show how the link from goo to human. But you believe it happened. Maybe it did, maybe it didnt. Maybe its all part of Gods plan to begin with maybe it wasn't. If you cant prove eactly what happened then why are you surprised that some choose a different version of truth then what you believe. Thats all this is who believes what since none of it is proven no matter how much you want to "believe" you have it all figured out you just dont...........

OK, live your life with blinders on. and good luck to you. It's been an interesting and eye-opening discussion.

 

[Flying Crane]

We are not talking about different subjects we are talking about one subject. The creation of man. One topic, one class, one time,

Oh and we did read parts of the Odyssey in History class

everyone who actually understands the issue, is talking about two different subjects.
Those who do not understand the issue, believe it is one subject.

 

[ballen0351]

everyone who actually understands the issue, is talking about two different subjects.
Those who do not understand the issue, believe it is one subject.

The origins of man? sounds like one topic to me

 

[ballen0351]

OK, live your life with blinders on. and good luck to you. It's been an interesting and eye-opening discussion.

Ditto

 

[Steve]

The origins of man? sounds like one topic to me

Sounds like you're suggesting a philosophy class. I think that sounds like a great class for children at a particular level. It would seem to me, though, that a firm grounding in biology and religion would be a pre-requisite for that particular philosophy class. What I mean is, you have to teach things in order. You teach arithmetic before you teach algebra, which leads to trig and calculus, which then goes off into theoretical math, physics and all the rest. There's a logical order.

Similarly, in order for a kid to really get what I think you're talking about out of a nuanced discussion about the "origin of man," they will need to be grounded in biology, the scientific method, and the theory of evolution. I'd also recommend a world religions class that focused on the fundamentals of at least the five major religions of the world: Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hindu and Buddhism. Only after that would the philosophy class you're talking about be productive.

To sum up, a discussion about the origins of man, comparing and contrasting the religious AND scientific ideas, could be a very interesting class. But, it would only work, IMO, for older kids (high school level) who have been given a foundation so that the discussion could be had in context.

Also, for what it's worth, I see the class discussing not just the Christian origin story, but also (at least) the origin myths of the other four major religions in addition to the theory of evolution.

 

[Flying Crane]

The origins of man? sounds like one topic to me

Sounds like you're suggesting a philosophy class. I think that sounds like a great class for children at a particular level. It would seem to me, though, that a firm grounding in biology and religion would be a pre-requisite for that particular philosophy class. What I mean is, you have to teach things in order. You teach arithmetic before you teach algebra, which leads to trig and calculus, which then goes off into theoretical math, physics and all the rest. There's a logical order.

Similarly, in order for a kid to really get what I think you're talking about out of a nuanced discussion about the "origin of man," they will need to be grounded in biology, the scientific method, and the theory of evolution. I'd also recommend a world religions class that focused on the fundamentals of at least the five major religions of the world: Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hindu and Buddhism. Only after that would the philosophy class you're talking about be productive.

To sum up, a discussion about the origins of man, comparing and contrasting the religious AND scientific ideas, could be a very interesting class. But, it would only work, IMO, for older kids (high school level) who have been given a foundation so that the discussion could be had in context.

Also, for what it's worth, I see the class discussing not just the Christian origin story, but also (at least) the origin myths of the other four major religions in addition to the theory of evolution.

aye, and without what Steve is saying here, then you are simply trying to put religion on equal footing with the scientific method, within the context of a science class. And that lead balloon just doesn't fly.

Excellent post, Steve. I was formulating some similar comments but you've captured it very eloquently.

 

[billc]

And on that consensus on man made global warming...cosmic rays? Eh, Flash Gordon...

http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/08/ten_year_anniversary_of_the_climate_change_paradigm_shift.html

Such a paradigm shift started a decade ago, when Israeli astrophysicist Nir Shaviv and Canadian geologist Jan Veizer published the ground-breaking study that laid out the chief long-term cause of climate change -- cosmic rays. The graph below shows the curve that they discovered. The original is found and explained on Nir Shaviv's blog at

http://www.sciencebits.com/ice-ages:

Shaviv had mapped the travels of the solar system through the spiral arms of our galaxy (shown in the top half of the above graph). Veizer had mapped the ice ages of the last 500 billion years (shown, along with the fit to the cosmic ray inflow, in the temperature record in the bottom half of the above graph). What they found is that ice ages occurred when the Earth traveled through the spiral arms of our galaxy, periods when the Earth must have been experiencing high levels of cosmic ray inflow.


Other scientists had been laying the groundwork, but it was Shaviv's graph which caused the paradigm shift.

At a time when the anthropogenic global warming paradigm was accepted by almost all scientists, his paper with Veizer was published in a geology journal, geology being the one scientific discipline that had never swallowed the man-centered view of climate change.

Geologists knew, from the geological record, that ice ages and greenhouse ages way preceded man in the Earth's history. Some also knew that carbon dioxide concentrations on today's Earth are low compared to the levels during earlier epochs. They did not share the usual inflated view of man's power and importance.

But, but...I thought all scientists believed in man made global warming...and that it was just a "fact," but perhaps...there is more to the story...

 

[ballen0351]

aye, and without what Steve is saying here, then you are simply trying to put religion on equal footing with the scientific method, within the context of a science class. And that lead balloon just doesn't fly.

Excellent post, Steve. I was formulating some similar comments but you've captured it very eloquently.

Again your claiming that creationism isn't possible. Yet you cant prove it didn't happen. You cant prove they are not on equal footing. you "believe" its not. At some point something had to have been created out of nothing so no matter how far back you believe where did the goo come from where did the universe come from? We dont know and we cant prove one way or the other.

 

[Flying Crane]

Again your claiming that creationism isn't possible. Yet you cant prove it didn't happen. You cant prove they are not on equal footing. you "believe" its not. At some point something had to have been created out of nothing so no matter how far back you believe where did the goo come from where did the universe come from? We dont know and we cant prove one way or the other.

I am actually not claiming that creationism isn't possible. Rather, creationism cannot be proven nor disproven. It cannot be observed nor measured. If it is accepted, it is done so on faith, absent any concrete evidence, and is based on traditions that have been handed down to us by previous generations. Some people accept that faith, others do not. That is a personal choice.

Science deals with what is observable and measurable and compiles concrete evidence to describe the world around us. Let science deal with the observable and measurable. Let religion deal with that which is taken on faith. Religion and faith do not belong in the science classroom.

Science has not yet been able to describe everything in the world. Science is very open about that fact. But that does not justify bringing faith into a science class and pretending that it too is science, or that faith can be accepted scientifically. Again, that is ignorant.

Recognize it for what it is. Religion deals with faith, and it has an appropriate place in society and in the educational system. But that place is not in the science classroom.

I really have no problem with a teacher, in the context of a religion or theology class, suggesting to the students that the aspects of our existence that cannot (yet) be described by science can be seen within the context of the faith as a guiding act of god/zeus/odin/mother goddess, etc. As science fills in the gaps, then it becomes appropriate to adjust the faith to accept what can be scientifically described and for which there is abundant evidence.

However, there is a very big problem with a teacher, in the context of a science class, telling the students that the gaps in scientific understanding should be viewed as the hand of god at work. That is a leap of faith, it is not measurable or observable, and there is no evidence to support it. So in the context of a science class, where observation, measurement, and evidence are of paramount importance and cannot be applied to faith, it is absolutely inappropriate to bring faith into the mix and couch it as scientifically plausible.

This is really a very simple concept. I am bewildered why this is so difficult to grasp.