Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-22-2019 11:53 PM
20 online now:
DrJones*, edge, Tanypteryx (3 members, 17 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,100 Year: 5,137/19,786 Month: 1,259/873 Week: 155/460 Day: 97/58 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationists Linking Evolution with Global Warming
Percy
Member
Posts: 18371
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 1 of 15 (549177)
03-04-2010 2:57 PM


In today's New York Times: Darwin Foes Add Warming to Targets. First paragraph:

Critics of the teaching of evolution in the nation’s classrooms are gaining ground in some states by linking the issue to global warming, arguing that dissenting views on both scientific subjects should be taught in public schools.

--Percy


Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Coragyps, posted 03-05-2010 9:08 PM Percy has responded

    
Taz
Member (Idle past 1399 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 2 of 15 (549221)
03-05-2010 12:25 AM


From the article...

quote:
“Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant,” the resolution said, “but rather a highly beneficial ingredient for all plant life.”

This is the sort of statement that walks the line between deceptive truth and outright lie.

Let's look at something else to get my point across. Water is not a pollutant, but rather a highly beneficial ingredient for ALL LIFE.

Sounds good, right? Do we want to drown in it? Just because water is an essential and beneficial ingredient of life doesn't mean we want to drown in it. Unless of course you're a dumbass surfer who showed up at the beaches with surfboards as soon as tsunami warnings were given a couple days ago...

Just because carbon dioxide is an essential and beneficial ingredient for plant life doesn't mean we want too much of it.


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Percy, posted 03-05-2010 7:16 AM Taz has responded
 Message 13 by Modulous, posted 03-07-2010 2:26 PM Taz has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18371
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 3 of 15 (549239)
03-05-2010 7:16 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Taz
03-05-2010 12:25 AM


It's the same creationist approach applied to the climate debate, isn't it. They focus on one thing that supports their view and ignore everything else that doesn't: "If there was no flood then why are there seashells atop mountains?"

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Taz, posted 03-05-2010 12:25 AM Taz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Taz, posted 03-05-2010 7:03 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7694
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 4 of 15 (549261)
03-05-2010 12:19 PM


I guess this would make Bjorn Lomborg the Kent Hovind of global warming skeptics. A book by Howard Friel ("The Lomborg Deception") documents how Lomborg completely misused the peer reviewed literature. In certain instances Lomborg claimed that specific conclusions were reached in these papers, but the authors actually came to the complete opposite conclusion than those suggested by Lomborg. Does that sound familiar?

You can read a review of "The Lomborg Deception" here.


  
Taz
Member (Idle past 1399 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 5 of 15 (549318)
03-05-2010 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Percy
03-05-2010 7:16 AM


Buzsaw has been using this argument against GW for years. I've been dismissing it as just his ramblings. I had no idea that there are honest to god those out there who actually buy this crap of an argument by the masses.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Percy, posted 03-05-2010 7:16 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Buzsaw, posted 03-05-2010 9:54 PM Taz has not yet responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5381
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 8.4


Message 6 of 15 (549327)
03-05-2010 9:08 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Percy
03-04-2010 2:57 PM


It's pretty interesting in a sociological sort of way how this "denialism" works: a lot of folks that seem to think Glenn Beck is a Deep Thinker also seem to be creationists and/or global warming deniers and/or say AIDS and HIV are unconnected. A very strong anti-intellectual, anti-"elitist" thread runs through all of that.

The fundy faction on Texas's State Board of Education more or less embraces all of that, as far as I can tell. Oh, and also in the news: a couple of the very fundy ones got voted out on Tuesday.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Percy, posted 03-04-2010 2:57 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Percy, posted 03-05-2010 9:46 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18371
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 7 of 15 (549331)
03-05-2010 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Coragyps
03-05-2010 9:08 PM


Coragyps writes:

The fundy faction on Texas's State Board of Education more or less embraces all of that, as far as I can tell. Oh, and also in the news: a couple of the very fundy ones got voted out on Tuesday.

What? Whoopee!

I just checked the news, and Don McLeroy, the conservative former chairman who oversaw the review of the science curriculum in 2008, was voted out! And Cynthia Dunbar, who replaced McLeroy as chairperson after he was removed from that position by the state legislature and who is as loony as McLeroy and just as effectively destructive to science education, decided not to run this year. Her seat will be decided by a runoff election in April.

With the turnover it isn't clear which direction the new board will lean, but let us hope that the Texas stranglehold on science textbooks is coming to an end.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Coragyps, posted 03-05-2010 9:08 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

    
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 15 (549333)
03-05-2010 9:54 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Taz
03-05-2010 7:03 PM


The Fat Lady Hasn't Sang Yet
Taz writes:

Buzsaw has been using this argument against GW for years. I've been dismissing it as just his ramblings. I had no idea that there are honest to god those out there who actually buy this crap of an argument by the masses.

Taz, are you unaware that Buz is a global warmist? Yah, I've stated here on this board that there will, according to the Biblical record be a an eventual aggregate (I say aggragate) of global warming to the extent of evaporation of much of the oceans, the drying of many rivers, extensive drout and much more.

My position is that CO2 will be part of this but the sun will effect the more significant share of it.

The fat lady hasn't sang on all of the ramifications of this issue as well as the global warming debate.

As I see it, yes, there will be some negative aspects of global warming, but the designer has so wonderfully designed the eco systems of the planet that after the fat lady sings, when the eco system corrects and adjusts, the prophesied plowman will overtake the reaper millenium will be realized.

Heck, man, if you people think that premordial soup can progress into all of the complexity of life that we have today and that an expansion of mindless energy can effect itself into the universe we live in, certainly a CO2 problem will be no biggie for the eco system to handle, with or without direct design; perhaps some of each.

As for the flood, the big problem I have is how to refute dating methodology relative to whatever pre-flood planet there may have been if indeed there was a global flood as per the Biblical record. I believe it will eventually effectively and sensibly refuted, but I'm not there yet - still thinking and reading on that.

For me, there's just too much corroborating evidence for the credibility of the Biblical record to convince me that the flood account is mythical.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Taz, posted 03-05-2010 7:03 PM Taz has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by ZenMonkey, posted 03-05-2010 10:11 PM Buzsaw has responded

  
hooah212002
Member
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 9 of 15 (549336)
03-05-2010 10:01 PM


In other news.....
Siberia is killing us with METHANE!!!


"Some people think God is an outsized, light-skinned male with a long white beard, sitting on a throne somewhere up there in the sky, busily tallying the fall of every sparrow. Others—for example Baruch Spinoza and Albert Einstein—considered God to be essentially the sum total of the physical laws which describe the universe. I do not know of any compelling evidence for anthropomorphic patriarchs controlling human destiny from some hidden celestial vantage point, but it would be madness to deny the existence of physical laws."-Carl Sagan

"On a personal note I think he's the greatest wrestler ever. He's better than Lou Thesz, Gorgeous George -- you name it."-The Hulkster on Nature Boy Ric Flair


Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by RAZD, posted 03-05-2010 10:12 PM hooah212002 has acknowledged this reply

    
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 2619 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


(3)
Message 10 of 15 (549337)
03-05-2010 10:11 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Buzsaw
03-05-2010 9:54 PM


Re: The Fat Lady Hasn't Sang Yet
Last time I checked, Buz, I believe your position was that the data about global warming was all fake, except that global warming was real, which was really a good thing for the pineapple crops in New York state, except that it was a bad thing because it was going to wreck the planet, except that it was a good thing because once the planet was wrecked Jesus would come back to fix it all up.

Oh yeah, and that since someone once might have had some pictures which they subsequently lost of what could have been chariot wheels in the Red Sea, where of course no one would have driven chariots unless they were chasing Jews with them, that means that all of geology, anthropology, biology and physics are completely wrong and the Alps were formed over the course of a few weeks by tidal waves.

Does that about cover it?

I'll go ahead and take my suspension now, thank you.


I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon
This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Buzsaw, posted 03-05-2010 9:54 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Buzsaw, posted 03-06-2010 7:01 PM ZenMonkey has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19816
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 11 of 15 (549338)
03-05-2010 10:12 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by hooah212002
03-05-2010 10:01 PM


piddling stuff
Hi hooah212002,

Siberia is killing us with METHANE!!!

Those lakes are piddling in comparison to large bands in the oceans

http://www.utopiasprings.com/methane.htm

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by hooah212002, posted 03-05-2010 10:01 PM hooah212002 has acknowledged this reply

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 15 (549398)
03-06-2010 7:01 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by ZenMonkey
03-05-2010 10:11 PM


Re: The Fat Lady Hasn't Sang Yet
Zen Monkey writes:

Last time I checked, Buz, I believe your position was that the data about global warming was all fake, except that global warming was real, which was really a good thing for the pineapple crops in New York state, except that it was a bad thing because it was going to wreck the planet, except that it was a good thing because once the planet was wrecked Jesus would come back to fix it all up.

Hi Zen. My position in that thread was The scandal has mostly to do cooking the books/data so as to falsly highly over-rate implication of man made carbon dioxide etc. from msg 26

As to the off topic rant on the charriot wheel evidence, I suggest that you thoroughly google all of the data on it in order that you might intelligently debate the pros and/or cons relative to it before making a determination.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by ZenMonkey, posted 03-05-2010 10:11 PM ZenMonkey has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 212 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 13 of 15 (549436)
03-07-2010 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Taz
03-05-2010 12:25 AM


“Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant,” the resolution said, “but rather a highly beneficial ingredient for all plant life.”

That looks familiar. I read this in this article last year from Ian Plimer a geologist and AGW denier who said: "CO2 is not a pollutant but a plant food".

looks like it's reached denial-meme status


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Taz, posted 03-05-2010 12:25 AM Taz has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Granny Magda, posted 03-07-2010 5:39 PM Modulous has responded

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 14 of 15 (549447)
03-07-2010 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Modulous
03-07-2010 2:26 PM


Ouch!
Hi Mod,

"CO2 is not a pollutant but a plant food".

Ouch! That's painful. It's such a stupidly false dichotomy he's painting. "Plant food" can be a serious pollutant. Anyone who knows anything about conservation will know about nitrogen fertiliser run-off from farming and its disastrous effects on nitrogen-poor habitats like woodland and grassland. Come to think of it, you'd kinda expect a geologist to know that too...

Mutate and Survive


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Modulous, posted 03-07-2010 2:26 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Modulous, posted 03-07-2010 5:59 PM Granny Magda has acknowledged this reply

    
Modulous
Member (Idle past 212 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 15 of 15 (549448)
03-07-2010 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Granny Magda
03-07-2010 5:39 PM


Re: Ouch!
Come to think of it, you'd kinda expect a geologist to know that too

If you read the linked article - he says even more stupid things even more closely relate to his field. He denies that humans have the capability of creating significant global warming...and that "Solar Physics" proves this somehow.

I have decided that Plimer is basically lying. He has to know better. He claimed that AGW evidence rests solely in the last 150 years, and as a geologist he knows the earth is 4 billion years. Any geologist worth his salt would surely know that paleoclimatology is an active field and is cited by the majority of climatologists as evidence for AGW.

Anyway - the interesting thing about Plimer is that he stands as an interesting exception to the relationship put forward in the OP. He is fervently anti-creationism and has famously debated Gish. From wiki:

quote:
Plimer is an outspoken critic of creationism and is famous for a 1988 debate with creationist Duane Gish in which he asked his opponent to hold live electrical cables to prove that electromagnetism was 'only a theory'. Gish accused him of being theatrical, abusive and slanderous

Weird that he thinks that 500tonnes of Horse manure on his back garden wouldn't constitute 'pollution'.

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Granny Magda, posted 03-07-2010 5:39 PM Granny Magda has acknowledged this reply

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019