2009-7-28 02:31:00
[Compiler's Note: The "Local Posts" series of articles found here in "The Archives" are a collection of exchanges between JJ Dewey and others participating on a local online newspaper blog, and were subsequently re-posted by JJ Dewey on The Keys Of Knowledge discussion group prior to being archived here.]
JJ:
It's been getting alarmingly cool lately. We are due for an ice age and in the past they have come quickly. Let us hope we have some time to prepare.
Read this:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5525933/Crops-under-stress-as-temperatures-fall.html
"Run" wrote:
"AGHHH -- Joseph, would you take a statistics class and a meteorology class, soon. Go to the library, enroll at a local college or university, I don't care. Just do it, soon! In the meantime, here's today's lesson: weather equals climate.
"'It's been getting alarmingly cool lately' is a comment about the weather, unless by 'lately' you mean over the last few centuries, which I'm assuming you don't.
"In contrast, global warming is a 'climate' trend. Bottom line is this: The rate at which the global mean temperature is changing is increasing faster than ever before. (rate is increasing => second derivative, not first (hope you've had some calculus)). The hottest 10 years on record have happened since 1990. (I know we disagree on this fact, but I still side with NASA and NOAA on this one.)
"If you want to debate whether it's human-caused, fine, but stop denying the facts, Jack!"
JJ:
Sigh...
1934 was the hottest year on record.
The best argument that "Run" can come up with is I don't know the difference between weather and climate when my post never mentioned or used either word.
You need to attack me on what I do say, not what I do not say.
Why is it that every Lefty here attacks me on what I do not say?
It is getting tiring.
Even your guru Al Gore maintains that weather and climate are related. Just watch his movie or read his books.
The temperature raise in the last 100 years has been less than 1 degree C, which is within a very normal range. We are lucky it went up instead of down or there would be major famine now due to crop losses.
Now in the Statesman today state paid scientists are predicting a 11.5 degree increase over the next century. I'll tell you right now that's not going to happen.
You keep saying that I am denying the facts. I challenge you to give me even one fact that I deny.
What's that I hear?
Silence...
By the way theory is not fact.
"Gimmeshelter" wrote:
"Joseph: Who cares who's right about global warming? Regardless, don't you think it wise to at least prepare? Bet you'd say we should have a military that is always prepared, huh?"
JJ:
Finally, an intelligent question without insults from one who disagrees with me. Thanks.
Yes, I think we should prepare for all scenarios within reason but historically we have an ice age every 11,500 years and we are due for another and we are only concentrating on the possibility of warming.
There is also the possibility we could be hit by a comet but the chances of that or devastation from global warming is not so great that we should ruin our economy to prepare.
The best way to prepare for warming or cooling is to develop nuclear energy and Obama is putting zero investment into this, our best hope as a hedge against all weather related catastrophes.
I'm all for going off oil and switching to electric cars but not by dismantling our auto industry or destroying the economy.
"Gimmeshelter":
"Why not a climate policy?"
JJ:
I have no problem with that, but the one we have is one-sided, fanatical as well as illogical.
"Gimmeshelter":
"And, by the way. In another comment you deride those concerned about rising temps by saying we are 'lucky it went up 1 degree rather than down as there would be major famine.....'. Really? You mean to say that a 1 degree temp change can be disastrous? M-m-m-m-m? That would seem to dispute all the other garbage you spew daily about climate change, wouldn't it? You can't have it both ways, Joseph m'boy."
JJ:
You need to argue with what I say, not with what I do not say. The people I have criticized are those who say that man is creating most of the change and ignore the change caused by natural cycles. From the 1900 level a drop of one degree would have been much worse than a rise. The one-degree rise has been more beneficial than hurtful, though the alarmists only concentrate on the negative.
JJ to "Run":
I do not see any concrete data produced by you for discussion as you say but only nebulous beliefs.
I understand perfectly clear the difference between weather and climate. Why you think I do not is a mystery.
Global warming is mainly concerned with ...duh... warming or temperature rise. If global temperatures rise then regional temperatures will on the average also rise. The article I noted was not supposed to be ironclad evidence against present global warming but does supply good anecdotal evidence that this may turn out to be a fairly cool year. Evidence is pointing in this direction.
Here is an interesting article noting a cooling trend using NASA measurements rather than the less perfect land measurements.
http://www.rightsidenews.com/200901073243/energy-and-environment /global-warming-is-really-global-cooling.html
I'm still waiting for you to produce a fact that I am denying.
And thanks for the reference "ConservoDem." Is there something there that is supposed to enlighten me?
"ConservoDem":
"But the 'science' cited from SPPI (Science & Public Policy Institute) ignores long term data. As shown in the graph cited below, there were also temperature drops from 1979 - 1984, 1987 - 1992, and 1994 - 1996 that were similar to or greater than 2000 2008. But the overall trend is UP. Using short term data to demonstrate long term trends is 'junk science.'"
JJ:
I do not know any skeptic who is using a decade of temperatures to predict anything long term. But you are right, using short term data to demonstrate long term trends is junk science.
The site you refer to is using junk science in that it is using short term data of just over 100 years that favor global warming alarmist conclusions. We need to look at data over a period of thousands of years to get a clear picture of what to expect. When we do this it is quite likely that we may be approaching a naturally cooler cycle. Since it hasn't warmed since 2000 and this year is starting off with cold spells all over the world we should take notice. No one knows if the cycle has turned yet, but it is a possibility.
Mr. Valk writes:
"Here are my recommended summer readings for the uninformed:
"If you think that science has proven the Bible, you obviously have not read 'God, the Failed Hypothesis' by Victor Stenger."
JJ:
He sets up a straw man God of his own making and then destroys it but does not explain how DNA could be created without the application of higher intelligence.
Valk:
"Archaeologist S. Acharya proved Jesus Christ was a mythical person in 'The Christ Conspiracy.'"
JJ:
It is true that many Christians are unaware of the elements of their historical origins and Ms Acharya brings some light on this but she does not disprove the historical existence of Jesus. The fact that a fragment of the Gospel of John found in Egypt dates to the first part of the second century dispels the myth that Jesus as created by church fathers or the Roman Empire after 300 AD.
Valk:
"If you believe this nation was founded as a Christian nation, then you have not read 'Jefferson & Madison on Separation of Church and State,' edited by Lenni Brenner."
JJ:
I don't think many think the country was founded as a Christian nation but most accept the fact that many of the founders believed the Bible and were influenced by it. Even Jefferson cherished the actual teachings of Jesus and compiled them.
Valk:
"Statistically, the American atheists and the agnostics are the best-behaved, based on religious beliefs."
JJ:
Strange statement. I didn't know atheists have religious beliefs.
If you want to read a great book read "MAO, the Unknown Story" by Jung Chang and Jon Halliday. What happened to the Chinese people under this atheist could happen to us if we are not vigilant.
"Run" writes:
"DNA exists for the same reason that tunneling of particles is possible: randomness. Monkeys typing Shakespeare, you know? Not everything has to be supernatural."
JJ:
News flash: Monkeys do not type Shakespeare.
Quantum tunnelings is a very miraculous occurrence that gives evidence for divine intelligence at work.
The renown physicist Heinz Pagels, was one of many who believed that quantum physics is a kind of code that interconnects everything in the universe, including the physical basis of life itself. In his popular book "The Cosmic Code," he makes a great case that divine intelligence is at work to produce quantum effects.
Intelligence in action is not predictable, but not random.
"TWall" wrote:
"Joseph, I'm at a loss. Please explain why DNA has to have had a higher intelligence create it?"
JJ:
Simple. If you are walking through a forest and stumble across an Apple computer it is obvious that some intelligence created it rather than random elements coming together.
Now blow up a particle of DNA up to the size of a tree and look at it. You then see something much more complicated than the computer. In fact one could say it is a great computer. Looking at it from this prospective reveals that the chances of this coming together randomly is much greater than stumbling across a randomly created computer or Iphone.
"TWall" wrote:
"Sorry Joe, not buying that explanation. In fact that explanation (to me) is childish at best. It follows the logic of 'mommy and daddy said it so it must be true.' Sorry to say but I expected more out of someone that is so versed in metaphysics and spiritual thought."
JJ:
Making an authoritative declaration is a form of admission to checkmate.
"ConservoDem":
"All your posts can be boiled down to one simple statement: Joseph732 knows that 'conservatism,' the Bible, and all their words are the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth!""
JJ:
Your stereotype of me is inaccurate. I am more liberal than conservative. The problem for Lefties is they cannot stand any deviation from their pure doctrine while conservatives are more tolerant. I also do not believe the Bible is infallible, but do believe it has a lot of truth and try to be tolerant of other's beliefs that differ from my own -- which includes most Christians.
"TWall" wrote:
"Just because something is advanced does not mean something intelligent had to create it. Look at crystal lattice structures of molecules, some are complicated and they are created naturally. Not by anything intelligent."
JJ:
And you think this because?
From the subatomic worlds to the crystal lattices to the human cell there is great complexity that testifies to divine intelligence at work either in the present or in past programming.
The great complexity of all things created testifies to the fact that a great intelligence is at work in the microcosm as well as the macrocosm.
"TWall" wrote:
"How so Joseph? Just because something is complex does not prove higher intelligence."
JJ:
I can just see "Twall" walking along a beach and coming across a complex sandcastle. Then he says:
"There's another one of those sandcastles that just put itself together. Funny thing that...."
"Larnewoman" wrote:
"No. We know people make sand castles and it would be logical to attribute it to someone else that was at the beach.
"I can just see 'joseph732' finding a baby on his doorstep one morning and concluding that 'a higher intelligence must have assembled this complex contraption and left it on my doorstep.'"
JJ:
What would be logical is to assume that the computer program in the DNA responsible for the baby's body was programmed by a higher intelligence. Then the intelligence that inhabits the body is even more complex. It is also logical to assume that the baby did not place itself on the doorstep, but some person of intelligence for some reason.
"Larnewoman"
"The necessity of such an intelligent designer is not supported by science."
JJ:
Wow! What authority. Look at me -- I can say authoritative things too that are not backed up by anything but my words:
"The necessity of such an intelligent designer IS supported by science."
How about using facts and reason rather than authoritative near fanatical religious-like declarations?
"Larnewoman""
"'Don't know' does not equal 'God did it.'"
JJ:
But you've got to admit that finding a computer in the middle of a forest and thinking it created itself isn't that bright. The obvious explanation is that some intelligence did it!
"Mikeymeitbual" wrote:
"Joseph, your ramblings will actually mean something the day you quit using logical fallacies in attempts to support your arguments. You continually use the fallacious appeal to design in support of intelligently created DNA when logic tells us that complexity does not necessitate design. If you were truly a student of philosophy as you claim, you would realize this. Alas, that is not the case."
JJ:
Give me one example of a complex creation that has been proven to have randomly assembled itself.
What's that I hear...?
Silence.
I'm surprised to be literally surrounded by atheists willing to abnegate reason in the mist of this Christian centered state.
"ConservoDem" wrote:
"Joseph is playing the fool in an ancient argument. The existence of god can neither be proven nor disproved. If Joseph chooses to ignore the amazing capacity of genetic variability to solve complex problems and the ability of a simple life essence to evolve genetics itself and ever more complex forms in order to support his rigid theology, there is nothing any of us can do to dissuade him."
JJ:
Again, you need to argue with what I do say, not with what I do not say. I do not ignore this but you should ask the question: Why does the simple life essence have the ability to evolve?
Since no one from the beginning of time has created an experiment where random elements can organize into the complex by chance then there are two explanations.
"ConservoDem":
"Let him blather on, uninterrupted, as long as he doesn't suggest teaching his unsupportable thesis in the public education system."
JJ:
Unfortunately a lot of unsupported dogmatic ideas are already taught there. I'm for teaching real science and in unproven areas teaching the arguments from both sides, but sticking to facts and avoiding presenting dogma as facts from both sides.
"Larnewoman":
"I say, I may have missed it: Please give me a lead to the scientist(s) that have published credible work, experiments, or theories regarding an intelligent designer. Thanks."
JJ:
We can start with simple mathematics to which all scientists subscribe, that we all should have learned in high school concerning the laws of probability.
These laws tell us that an Apple computer will not assemble itself, even so, it is mathematically impossible that DNA created itself without help from a higher intelligence.
The question that needs to be asked is: What causes the forward motion toward higher organization in form? Why is not entropy the rule?
The question is too simple for many scientists in love with their own dogma.
-- End Of Part Two --
Go To:
Next article in series: Local Posts #26
Previous article in series: Local Posts #25, Part One
Copyright © 2009 by J.J. Dewey, All Rights Reserved