“But even if a majority of scientists had voted for human-caused global warming, that’s not how science works. Unlike in politics, the majority does not rule. Rather, every advance in science has come from a minority that found that observed facts contradicted the prevailing hypothesis. Sometimes it took only one scientist; think of Galileo or Einstein.”
S. Fred Singer
-professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia and former director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service.
article
40 comments:
Some months ago now, I had an idea to cut the emissions from the US in half. My idea is this. The Democrats, being half the population, may cease driving gas powered vehicles this instant! Viola! Cut in half!
Singer is a prominent global warming skeptic and also has challenged the link between second-hand smoke and cancer. Completely coincidental, I'm sure, is that he has received money from Exxon and the Tobacco lobby.
It is not inconceivable that Singer and other skeptics are right. However, the strong consensus of the scientific community disagree with him. I'm talking about scientists working in his field. True, science is not a democracy but the global warming skeptics are more in the position of a scientist challenging the theory of relativity, or the theory of evolution, than in the position of a Galileo or an Einstein.
So therefore Gores opinion is no more credible than Singers since Gore himself has a monetary horse in the race from selling DVD's.
The wording is very important here, and the greenies are using it very effectively to try and discredit their skeptics and sway public opinion. Very few scientists doubt there is global warming...the main area of contention is that it is not man made or anthropogenic global warming.Considering that we know for a fact that CO2 levels were at its highest during the ice age before mankind I find their argument to be the most credible.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion. The majority of scientists also maintain that human activity is the primary driver of the current global warming.Singer disagrees, and, as I said he could conceivably be right.But why, I ask, should policy makers be guided by the opinion of the minority in the debate--and a shrinking minority at that?
I believe that your statement that "CO2 levels were at its highest during the ice age" to be incorrect.
You might consult:
http://www.physorg.com/news2844.html
Gary, you're confusing things again. the theory of relativity has been proven and therefore is fact, the theory of evolution has been disproved many times over.
Also, as i've said before the global warming movement is worth BILLIONS. Do you think these scientists work for free? they all recieve grants from the government and will continue to as long as we're stupid enough to believe their bullshit.
btw, i'm taking the bears and the points.
More importantly....
Ive got the Bears under teaser.
Tails
Bears score first (defensive td)
Colts longest FG
Urlacher or Hester MVP
And in the big box
Bears 4, 8, 0
Colts 4, 5, 6
For 5K
Ok Gary you got me there. I will restate it.
CO2 levers were significantly (20x)higher prior to the ice age than they are today.
Happy? Ok now as far as that article is concerned...
...so then the earth isnt warming afterall and we are heading towards another ice age in 200 (20x) million years?
I can live with that.
...then again that article proves nothing but that two individuals have observed three separate natural occurences...hardly the makings of scientific fact.
The theory of evolution has not been disproven; to the contrary the evidence for it is overwhelming, it is central to modern biology and genetics, and it is accepted by all but a few fringe scientists, who are all fundamentalist religious types.Many of them also believe that the Earth is less than ten thousand years old, which is contrary to fact.
The more I read about this guy Singer the more I realize he's smart money, not to mention that he bitch slapped Carl Sagan in a debate over the dangers of the Kuwaiti oil fires when he predicted...shocker...doom and gloom.
Gary youre kind of like The Aurora's Sagan. And I mean that to be complimentary. Well ok, not really.
well gary, since the theory has not been disproven, show me ONE PROVEN example of one species evolving into another.
More importantly notice that every time you don't agree with someones science you attack their motivation. that's not an argument, that's an excuse. Now to answer your excuse:
Sir Fredrick Hoyle, and Chandra wickramasinghe are both athiests, AND they're both scientists (look them up) AND they both disproved evolution, as did Francis Crick ( athiest and nobel winner for his discovery of DNA)
So get over it. Evolution is bullshit.
oh and so is man made global warming.
I would be thrilled to be half as smart as Carl Sagan.
Dude that aint even cool. I googled Chandra Wickywickywick hoping to find a hot chick in a lab coat and instead I found Gollum with a tan.
i can't quite believe it. it's 2007 and you guys (presumably educated) are DEBATING EVOLUTION?
move on men, move on. please.
sheeesh.
First of all it's spelled "atheist." Second, Francis Crick, being a leading biologist, believed in evolution.
Hoyle and Chandra Whatsisname I know advocated a theory of panspermia, which sounds vaguely dirty.Crick I believe also flirted with the idea at one point.
Anita, it is odd that in the 21st century we are still debating evolution. Rhino, there really is no controversy about evolution in the scientific community, only within the religious communities, between those who accept if and those who do not.
I personally do not care if you believe that the Earth rests on the back of a big turtle, floating in a very large pond, so long as you do not want the idea taught in the public schools.
Francis Crick:
"The age of the earth is now established beyond any reasonable doubt as very great, yet in the United States millions of Fundamentalists still stoutly defend the naive view that it is relatively short, an opinion deduced from reading the Christian Bible too literally. They also usually deny that animals and plants have evolved and changed radically over such long periods, although this is equally well established. This gives one little confidence that what they have to say about the process of natural selection is likely to be unbiased, since their views are predetermined by a slavish adherence to religious dogmas."
My point exactly.
Why is that whenever the question of evolution comes up its always about the crazy fundamentalists. There are plenty of other faiths that have similiar beliefs...but its always about the Christians...which leads me to believe there are alterior motives by those that use that rebuttal.
...and in case you havent noticed The Aurora arent exactly bible thumpers.... so that argument doesnt hold water here.
You show me a shark on land, a talking crocodile, or a turtle that can get out of the way of a molasseslanche and then maybe Ill be convinced. Until then Darwinism is as much a fairytale as the book of Genesis to me.
i've seen MANY a shark on land ... just walk down 5th (or any other) avenue (or street) in nyc during lunch hour (or before lunch, or after lunch ... you get my drift) ...
once again gary and anita, other than sheep like yourselves who used to be real people, i will ask you.
If evolution is real, show me ONE not 100 not 1000 not 1,000,000 examples of ANY species that evolved into another species.
If evolution is real there would be millions of examples in the fossil record but there isn't ANY!
Nobody can explain WHY we haven't found any, can you?
Also, once again when you don't have an answer you attack the messenger.
Let me break it down for you. I don't believe in evolution and it has NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION. It has to do with common sense. evolution is as scientific as astrology. I'm an aquarius by the way.
the horse, for one.
and the concept of natural selection underpins selective breeding, by which man has used genetics to develop new species of animals and plants.
the horse? What did the horse used to be?
When did you discover these fossils?
By the way, breeding isn't evolution.
The problem is that numerous transitional forms have been found but the creationists keep saying that none have been found. Here's one: http://www.inthenews.co.uk/infocus/features/in-focus/flying-dinosaurs-$1044647.htm
http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution
/HorseEvolution.htm
and ... i was just at the American Museum of Natural History this weekend and i saws it for meselves ...
Here's some more: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
But then you only asked for one.
If someone could explain the origin of life for me that would help me immensely in this argument. Im no scientist but Im under the impression that something cannot evolve from nothing. Its only guesses. No mutations has ever been observed turning into another.
Or as Billy Preston once eloquently sang with soul....
"Nothin' from nothin' leaves nothin'
You gotta have somethin'"
...and the man with the fro oughta know.
Gary, from your link that you gave me!
"Note that these first, very very old traces of shark-like animals are so fragmentary that we can't get much detailed information. So, we don't know which jawless fish was the actual ancestor of early sharks"
Are you kidding me? they admit right there that they're guessing! i didn't even read it, i just scanned it to see where the qualifier would be and it was right on the front page!
Plus, that whole thing is about species developing into a better form of itself, not into a DIFFERENT SPECIES!
It wasn't a shark that turned into a hamster! it was a shark that got bigger and developed more teeth!
My grandfather believed that black people came from Venus. I knew better than to argue with him. I am beginning to feel the same way about arguing with you. No amount of evidence will ever convince you on global warming or evolution because it's not about the science.
hey Gary and anita, here's more:
"Paleoniscoids again (e.g. Cheirolepis) -- These ancient bony fish probably gave rise both to modern ray-finned fish (mentioned above), and also to the lobe-finned fish."
What's wrong with that sentence? Well nothing except that when you talk about proof, or facts, you don't use the word "probably"!
You see if it was factual it would say it DID evolve.
And HOLY SHIT are you joking with that flying dinosaur link? It doesn't even pretend to have any proof! it's not even an argument about evolution it's just an argument about whether or not this dinosaur had 2 wings or 4 wings!
If this was a done deal like the theory of relativity there would be NO question from ANY reputable scientists but i showed you multiple scientists who say it is impossible and they don't believe in creationism.
And yet...you keep arguing.
My aunt cant make a martini to save her ass...so guess what? You have to make your own. We dont try to teach her, coddle her, make excuses, consider her education or her childhood. We dont question if its her gender role to make them, we have given up.
She just cannot handle the mechanics. Right or wrong.
Let go, Gary.
And Donkeyhue your something instead of nothing argument (which is why Im not an atheist, really) is perhaps one of the only logic based things I think Ive seen from you. Gold star, cupcake.
gary, now you know how i've been feeling about you since i first started arguing with you. You're not rational. The stuff you sent me is so ridiculous it's almost pathetic.
That was in response to Gary, by the way.
Rhino and I must be ...simultaneous.
Again.
Science is all about "probably". You are looking for ONE piece of evidence that absolutely proves evolution and that is not how science works. That is not how the theory of relativity was proven.
I'm not rational? You said Francis Crick disproved evolution but he believed in evolution.
isn't relativity also known as the "general THEORY of relativity" ?
i hope this isn't turning into a science sight ... 'cuz if so, we're all in trouble man.
Really Anita. Science is better left to the scientists. Rhino and I both accept the theory of relativity. Certainly in my case it's not because I've done extensive research in the field of physics and understand all the science and math of it. I accept it because there is a broad scientific consensus for it, as there is for the theory of evolution.
Gary, there is not "broad consensus" there is proof. it is not questioned by anyone because it has been proven.
Once again there is NO proof in the fossil records of evolution. NONE. You're right that i haven't done a whole lot of research and i know you haven't either, but if there was any proof we would ALL know it. It would be common knowledge like piltdown man was before it was found to be a hoax.
Show me your PROOF on relativity. Evolution is proven in much the same way. How do you explain the substantial similarity, both anatomically and genetically, between men and apes?
i heard that donkeyhue IS piltdown man, or the missing link ... or something like that.
Gary i DONT explain the similarity.
anita, i heard the same thing and i think it's true.
Post a Comment