BPSDBOn Saturday The Huffington Post inexplicably published a climate change Denier screed “Mr. Gore: Apology Accepted” by Harold Amber. The piece itself is a very juvenile collection of some of the standard Denier fables, easily exposed as false and of no great interest.
As such I will debunk it last and first ask the more interesting question, “why?”
Legitimate challenges to aspects of climate science appear in publications like New Scientist all of the time, as they should. There is no reason The Huffington Post should not do so as well. But make no mistake, this is not a “skeptical” article (as you will see).
Ambler’s piece is so lame it is worthy of NewsBlusters or The Examiner, particularly as it affects the same tone of self-righteous arrogance as only the truly ignorant can manage. It is pure Denierism unsullied by any stain of accuracy or logic.
The Huffington Post is typically more progressive so even a skeptical article would be slightly surprising. More to the point, their regular climate writers include Kevin Grandia and Jospeh Romm who are knowledgeable and write solid, science based climate pieces.
Given that they have people with real knowledge at hand, why didn’t they at least run it by them first? Not for approval of course, but just to ask “Are we about to totally embarrass ourselves?”, because that is most certainly what they have done. Hopefully they will know better next time.
So is this another American Physical Society debacle? ie some uniformed editor low in the hierarchy mistakenly believing there is real doubt about climate science and so calls for or accepts a “skeptic piece?” And of course lacking any knowledge themselves fail to recognize it for pure drivel?
Or is something else going on? Has Denierism penetrated The Huffington Post? Let’s hope not. I hope rather that once the magnitude of this gaffe becomes clear they will return to Grandia, Romm and other fact based writers for their climate stories.
Ambler’s insufferably smug diatribe is organized around a theme of 
accepting an apology from Al Gore for causing climate hysteria. Right there we see the overarching Straw Man fallacy of pretending that climate science comes from Al Gore rather than climate scientists.
The Straw Man is a standard Denier tactic (particularly using Gore) as it allows them to frame the issue as if it were “opinion vs opinion” rather than deal with the reality of the science. To the naive it seems somewhat credible that blogger Harold Ambler might be right and Al Gore wrong.
His false credibility and absurd arrogance is undermined if he were admit up front that he suggesting that tens of thousands of scientists are fools and that he is the only one who has figured it out correctly.
So instead he chooses to use Al Gore as a punching bag for this whole ridiculous piece. That way he maintains the fiction that is Gore’s word against his, rather than the reality that it is his very uninformed and error filled opinions vs science.
Ambler “the expression “climate change” itself is a redundancy“
He begins his article with this trivial observation that climate changes all of the time, and then mistakenly concludes that “the expression “climate change” itself is a redundancy.” Ambler’s apparent belief that he has noticed something that escaped the attention of millions of scientists defies belief.
Of course everything fluctuates if you pick the right scale. The point is to choose appropriate scales so that the terminology is useful. The term “climate change” was coined in 1979 and is used by science to describe dramatic and often sudden shifts in climate.
Ambler: “There has been no stable period of climate during the Holocene, our own climatic era”
Actually the climate during the Holocene has been relatively quite stable with only minor fluctuations
Ambler: “Mr. Gore has used a famously inaccurate graph, known as the “Mann Hockey Stick,” “
The Mann graph is only “famously inaccurate” to people who get their information off of wingnut websites. Scientists know it is fine:
Ambler: “One last thought on the expression “climate change”: It is a retreat from the earlier expression used by alarmists, “manmade global warming,” which was more easily debunked.“
As noted above, it has been “climate change since 1979. And if “manmade global warming” was easily debunked, why has no one done it?
Ambler: “…now use instances of cold temperatures to prove the existence of “climate change,…“
So the tenth hottest year ever recorded in the hottest decade ever recorded is “cold.” What does he need to call a year “warm?” rocks melting?
FACT every new record hot year is followed by a slightly cooler period. That’s been going on for 50 yrs and the only ones who are surprised by it are the Deniers; see here and here.
2008 Coldest year of the century? every year this century is on the top-10 hottest list Stupid is as stupid does
Ambler: “Mr. Gore has gone so far to discourage debate…”
Gore has not discouraged debate, he called for an end to the oil industry funding deliberate misinformation campaigns. Campaigns which encouraged uninformed, misleading, commentary by dupes who seem to be unaware of their own incompetence. The name Harold Ambler leaps to mind for some reason.
Ambler: ” it turns out that there is an 800-year lag between temperature and carbon dioxide“
Actually the CO2 lag was predicted before it was discovered. If Ambler actually knew the science he would realize that one thing that they would have had trouble explaining is if there was no lag … he has it backwards.
Ambler: ” Carbon dioxide cannot absorb an unlimited amount of infrared radiation“
Ambler’s utter cluelessness just get’s worse and worse. The science (which he has obviously never looked at, not even the many excellent sites for children) is very clear, CO2 absorbs and then re-radiates the long wave heat that would have escaped to space, some of it to space, some back to earth.
Ambler: “This mechanism [CO2 trapping heat] has never been shown to exist”
The guy is just embarrassing. Actually it was “discovered by Joseph 
Fourier in 1824 and investigated quantitatively by Svante Arrhenius in 1896 ” (with surprising accuracy as it turns out).
Ambler: I will have to summarize. What we get here is a convoluted explanation of cloud formation acting as a feedback to cool the earth, the red herring that water vapour is the dominant greenhouse gas and not accounted for by climate science, the cooling oceans are driving climate, and noting that there has been a number of cold spells on the planet lately.
His whole description of the interactions with clouds which he presents as fact was merely an idea that has since been shown to be false, ditto his water vapour beliefs, add to his pile of errors the fact that contrary to his claims the oceans are warming, and finally the whole inability to distinguish climate from weather while cherry picking a few weather reports.
And the stupidities only get worse. He correctly notes that various factors have us in a cool phase (La Nina, Solar cycles), and somehow concludes that this means the earth is not warming.
IF climate change were not happening then these factors would have caused near record cold last year. What did we have instead? 2008 was the hottest La Nina-influenced year with no El Nino ever recorded, and the 10th hottest year ever.
Ambler: “In the book, the modern Galileo [Henrik Svensmark], for he is nothing less, establishes that cosmic rays from deep space”
His modern Galileo he has been repeatedly shown to be dead wrong.
.
Ambler: “I could go on”
Apparently there is no limit to his foolishness, and to prove it he adds:
.
Ambler: “the ice in the Arctic basin has always melted and refrozen”
Ice extent is actually at a record low (here and here) and ice volume (ie long term thick ice) has been in catastrophic decline
.
Here’s the NSIDC commentary from Dec 3 (2008):
The period of very rapid ice growth that characterized October and early November has ended. The rise in ice extent over the past three weeks has been much slower, and should continue to slow until the expected seasonal ice extent maximum is reached sometime in March.
Ambler: “the ice has always been melted from above (by the midnight Sun of summer) and below (by relatively warm ocean currents, possibly amplified by volcanic venting) … 2007 happened also to be the time of maximum historic sea ice in Antarctica.“
Of course he is wrong about the volcanos “The scientists say the heat released by the explosions is not contributing to the melting of the Arctic ice”
As for Antarctica: “Evidence that Antarctica has warmed significantly over past 50 years“, “Man-made climate change seen in Antarctica, Arctic“
In all of that he didn’t get a single thing right, not a single damn thing … impressive.
NB: This was largely written on Saturday but I was unable to finish it. Since then I see that there have been several good responses to Ambler, including 2 published by the Huff Post and all linked by them, so maybe they have learned.
A. Siegel — Global Warming Knowledge: “Perhaps it is worthwhile to take a moment to lay out some reasonable sources for actual knowledge when it comes to Global Warming science and discussion.”
Kevin Grandia — On Global Warming is it Harold Ambler or the Royal Society?: “It appears that Ambler’s background in the area of climate science is non-existent.”
HuffPost scores a 100 on the Inhofe Scale
Daily Kos: Dear Harold Ambler: “Climate Change” is Real
UPDATES Jan 06, 11:00
Diagnosing a victim of anti-science syndrome (ASS)
It turns out Ambler has a website that is your standard collection of the irrelevant and the inaccurate, from cherry picked weather stories to the moronic “Gore Effect” urban myth.
I suspect that he misses the irony that his appropriately titled site “Talking About The Weather” has no information about climate; clearly a tragic case of ASS (see link above).
We give our consent every moment that we do not resist.
Denier “Challenge” aka Deathwatch Update: Day 76 … still no evidence.
IMAGE CREDITS
Cartoon of the big bad wolf reading a bedtime story by Gaspirtz from Wikimedia Commons
I’m guessing it’s something along the lines of menstrual mood swings.
A while back, during the presidential elections, HuffPo published a piece about Palin’s past as a beauty pageant contestant. Which also made me wonder “why?”, because such things aren’t supposed to matter.
I’m interested in hearing the rationalisation for giving this average ability Denier a platform on HuffPo. Unsurprisingly, there’s the usual “it’s good that debate is not being shut down” comments appearing around the ’sphere – which, of course, is as useful as debating evolution with creationists.
I can’t think of any good reason – unless you count large numbers of commenters at HuffPo as ‘good’ – for running this idiocy.
Thanks for the always-thorough debunking, Mike.
[...] Romm’s Diagnosing a victim of anti-science syndrome (ASS). And, as well, Greenfyre’s Ambler huffs and puffs, but mostly he just blows for a fact-filled refutation of many of Ambler’s [...]
DavidONE, you and flymice make me ill.(see DailyKos). Why must you take shots at CHRISTIANS when arguing your points? Is it because your “science” cant prove anything you seem to expouse? If you claim to know everything, then surely you know nothing. All you and gore know is how to say is “if you dont agree 100% with me,then you are 100% wrong”. If you cant even stick to one topic at a time, what does that say about your mental prowess? By lumping creationists with people who disagree with you on global warming into one category, you show the true depth of your insufferable ignorance. Global warming(in the present) MAY be true. But the earth has gone through changes before. Would you prefer another ice age? Evolution is not a science, its a religion unto itself. You have your prophet(Darwin), your book(The origin of species), And your faith(“just add a couple billion years to the equation and it’ll all make sense). The ONLY thing dinosaur bones prove is this…THERE WERE DINOSAURS!! Anything beyond that is open to debate. Except for you and flymice of course, because you already know the TRUTH dont you? its whatever YOU believe, isnt it? IF you believe in the “Earth is this many BILLION years old” argument, then I contend a BILLION years from now your present arguments will be deemed incorrect. For the planets sake, we all agree that pollutung less is a good thing. But NOBODY has to agree with YOU on EVRYTHING to be taken seriously. I would love to point out all the shortcomings of evolution in the future, not because of what ANYONE ELSE has said, but because I used my own GOD GIVEN gift of free will to come to my own conclusions. THE WORLD IS FLAT, THE EARTH IS THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE, IF MAN WERE MEANT TO FLY HED HAVE WINGS. How fortunate we are that all theese things have turned out to be true. Of course YOU already KNEW that, didnt you?
Very minor nitpick – while Fourier did indeed discover the greenhouse effect he didn’t know which components of the atmosphere caused it. It was John Tyndall in 1859 who demonstrated that CO2 along with water vapour, ozone and some hydrocarbons all absorbed in the infra-red.
Sorry – I just sometimes think that Tyndall gets overlooked.
This is what Tyndall had to say about water vapour, almost 150 years ago:
“Aqueous vapour is a blanket more necessary to the vegetable life of England than clothing is to man.
Remove for a single summer-night the aqueous vapour from the air which overspreads this country, and you would
assuredly destroy every plant capable of being destroyed by a freezing temperature.
The warmth of our fields and gardens would pour itself unrequited into space, and the sun would rise upon an island held fast in the iron grip of
frost.”
Not accounted for?
—-
I must be masochistic.
Micetrap:
Why must you take shots at CHRISTIANS when arguing your points? Is it because your “science” cant prove anything you seem to expouse?
Setting aside that science can never “prove” anything, ever (that is, the Problem of Induction):
DavidONE attacked *creationists*, not Christians. They’re distinct groups. Case in point: Dr. Robert T. Bakker is a Pentecostal minister and also one of the most recognizable paleontologists in the world, and has defended the theory of evolution in public debate against creationists. Likewise, there are several other religions that have their own creation stories (from those close to Christianity, such as Islam, to those distinct, such as Hinduism), and members of several of these religions attack the theory of evolution using exactly the same fallacies of logic and reasoning that the more-familiar fundamentalist Christian creationist does. That doesn’t make them Christian, though, merely creationist. (See this for a more in-depth discussion on the failures of creationism. Note that this is not an attempt to challenge one’s faith, merely one’s arguments.)
Not all creationists are Christian, but all creationists fall into the same failures of rhetoric that the climate denialists do when they argue against the body of science that opposes their beliefs — they misrepresent data, quote mine, cherry-pick, field false experts, present logical fallacies, move goalposts, and also cry persecution.
Opening up with a claim of persecution against a group that David didn’t even mention doesn’t do much to present your case as sound.
If you claim to know everything, then surely you know nothing. All you and gore know is how to say is “if you dont agree 100% with me,then you are 100% wrong”.
You’re strawmanning, and also falling prey to Gore’s Law (which Mike linked in the post!) and, ironically, falling prey to Dunning-Kruger while accusing others of exactly the same thing.
A more accurate characterization of the climate scientist perspective is the IPCC consensus statement, slightly modified: “Given the evidence and best science available, it is very likely (>90%) that man’s activities are causing the climate to warm up.” Note the admittance of “we could be wrong”. If you think there’s an error, demonstrate so scientifically, and get it published. (It’d be a Nobel-worthy paper, by the way, if it actually did so.)
If you instead say “The globe’s not warming and we’re not the ones warming it and stopping it would kill the economy” (actual summary of one comment on this blog!), then you can be demonstrably wrong (in this case, because those claims are mutually exclusive, but in other cases it’s often due to a mistake of basic science (i.e. unaware of the nature of feedback) or an accusation of scientific misconduct (i.e. urban heat islands).
If you cant even stick to one topic at a time, what does that say about your mental prowess?
In a reply that’s all over the place, the irony of this statement is rather profound.
Watch, in the next couple of paragraphs you’ll jump from one topic (defending creationism) to another (attacking climate science).
By lumping creationists with people who disagree with you on global warming into one category, you show the true depth of your insufferable ignorance.
Unless you’re talking about their deceptive techniques, which are analagous. (for instance, where climate denialists confuse small-scale weather with large-scale climate, creationists may confuse small-scale phenotype with large-scale population genetics. Both also tend to conflate theories (climate denialists conflate paleoclimate, meteorology, geology, climatology, and so on, while creationists (sometimes) conflate biology, cosmology, and geology) and insist that there is no evidence (for the greenhouse effect or for transitional species respectively), despite such evidence existing since the dawn of their theories (the history of experimental GHGs is mentioned in this thread, while the first predicted transitional form, archaeopteryx, was found in Darwin’s days).
DavidONE is categorizing denialist behaviour, not religious affiliation.
Global warming(in the present) MAY be true. But the earth has gone through changes before. Would you prefer another ice age?
The balance of scientific understanding does not predict a coming recent ice age, and we are well aware of the Earth’s climate history. The important point to the modern change is simple: None of the historic forcings is present today. For instance, the last ice age ended when the Earth’s orbital cycles (Wiki Milankovic) shifted in such a way that the Earth would heat up. They are currently shifting such that the Earth will eventually cool (in ~20,000 years, if I remember the number correctly) and yet temperatures are rising. (This argument applies to all historical forcings that we are aware of, by the way. The biggest warming forcing present today that was not present in the past is human greenhouse gas emissions.)
Evolution is not a science, its a religion unto itself. You have your prophet(Darwin), your book(The origin of species), And your faith(”just add a couple billion years to the equation and it’ll all make sense).
No, it isn’t. Evolutionary theory is not a religion, nor is it atheism. You’re also miscategorizing the theory if all you think it takes is a couple billion years. (All that is required is reproduction with variation and some form of selection pressure; you can actually get this far quicker than that. Google “Observed instances of speciation” and you’ll see a few. There’s even a mosquito species adapted to life in the London Underground, which is a lot younger than a couple billion years.) Furthermore, to suspect that evolution hasn’t been challenged or changed since the 1850s is disingenuous — Darwin had no idea what a gene was, as DNA hadn’t been discovered yet!
I’ll let AronRa speak for me on these, refuting “evolution is atheism” and “evolution is a religion”, as he is better versed in the theory than I am. (My training was in physics and my research is in the cognitive sciences, not biology or geoscience.) I linked his work earlier and would encourage you again to look at it.
The ONLY thing dinosaur bones prove is this…THERE WERE DINOSAURS!! Anything beyond that is open to debate.
Where did anyone suggest otherwise?
Also, by the way, “debate” is not the same as “science”. In debate, all you need is freedom of speech and consistent logic. In science, you need both of those *and* consistent/repeatable observations of reality.
Except for you and flymice of course, because you already know the TRUTH dont you? its whatever YOU believe, isnt it? IF you believe in the “Earth is this many BILLION years old” argument, then I contend a BILLION years from now your present arguments will be deemed incorrect.
For one who attacks others of blind conviction, you seem awefully convinced of your own accuracy.
(For the record, multiple lines of evidence, from diverse fields, each consistent with the rest of observed reality, pins the age at approximately 4.6 billion years. To claim it is merely ~6000 involves rejecting virtually the entirety of known science, up to and including the speed of light.)
For the planets sake, we all agree that pollutung less is a good thing. But NOBODY has to agree with YOU on EVRYTHING to be taken seriously.
For these two sentences, I agree with you, and having seen his comments on other blogs, it would surprise me if DavidONE didn’t also agree with these sentences (taken in isolation).
I would love to point out all the shortcomings of evolution in the future, not because of what ANYONE ELSE has said, but because I used my own GOD GIVEN gift of free will to come to my own conclusions.
Point of interest: disproving evolution is not ‘proof’ of creationism, and ‘proof’ of creationism is not (necessarily; it may change due to the nature of the ‘proof’) ‘proof’ of your particular brand of creationism.
THE WORLD IS FLAT, THE EARTH IS THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE, IF MAN WERE MEANT TO FLY HED HAVE WINGS. How fortunate we are that all theese things have turned out to be true. Of course YOU already KNEW that, didnt you?
…I typed all of the above before I read this bit, and only now do I realize something.
1) This roughly translates as “YHBT. YHL. HAND.” OR
2) Poe’s Law is in full effect.
Please enlighten me as to which it is.
Brian….I’d have to say YHBT.
—-
Al Gore has really stepped in it this time. He could have spent the rest of his global warming career collecting money by spreading fear over events that were a century or at least half century in the future. Oh, but that wasn’t good enough for Big Al. He’s now told the biggest global warming whopper of his alarmist career:
AL GORE HAS PREDICTED THAT THE NORTHERN POLAR ICE CAP WILL BE COMPLETELY GONE IN FIVE YEARS!!!
When I heard this I assumed it was a rumor started by skeptics to make Gore look bad. It wasn’t until I viewed the video that I realized what Gore had done. Gore has started a five year credibility countdown timer ticking and it’s up to all of us to make sure that he is held accountable and proven to be a fraud when his dire prediction aimed at drumming up support doesn’t come true.
The mainstream media isn’t going to let this video see the light of day because they, unlike Al, understand the precarious position in which he has placed himself.
It is therefore up to us to spread the word about Big Al’s prediction. He must be exposed for the fear mongering opportunist that he has become.
To view the video, please visit the following site and click on the picture of Big Al holding up five fingers.
http://www. hootervillegazette.com
While visiting this site, you might want to watch a preview of the film “Not Evil, Just wrong” or watch “The Great Global Warming Swindle” which is found in the video section. Happy Viewing!!!
—-
I have already commented on “Not Evil, Just wrong” here (and below)
I’d also like to note that there are several folk out there with standing bets on offer for folk like Dash Riprock III — Joe Romm, for instance, has a similar standing bet (that the arctic will be ice-free by 2020; details here). Dash, if you’re so certain, put your money where your mouth is.
(BY the way, full translation of my line earlier: “You have been trolled. You have lost. Have a nice day.”)
“When I heard this I assumed it was a rumor started by skeptics to make Gore look bad.”
Yeah, I always tend to start with the assumption that the deniers are lying too.
Brian D. First off I would like to apologize for the tone of my rant. I was in a hurry, having a bad day,etc. ect. Secondly, I admire the way you calmly, rationally, and proffessionally took me apart bit by bit, I really do. And of course you are correct that different religions have thier own beliefs about how life originated. I assumed by the context of flymice and DavidOnes post they meant christians soley on the basis that they make up the majority of creationists per capita in the united states. If they meant to insult all creationists equally, I guess that makes thier points much more palletable. Yes, I did mention creationism and climate change, but only to point out that they were the ones who lumped the two arguments to begin with. They are two seperate discussions, that was my point, although admittedly I probably could have done a better job of stating it. My contention that a billion years from now their ideas would turn out to be wrong, was in fact more sarcastic than a display of my blind conviction. I never stated how old I thought the earth was. That was inferred by you. The varition of the mosquito in London is just that. A variation of a mosquito, not another organism (such as a “transitional” fly or any other insect). Darwin probably never pondered irreduceable complexity either. You can neither prove nor disprove creationism OR evolution. To suggest so is disengenuous also. Please show me a consistent/repeatable example of say, an ape turning into a human being or something else turning into another life form so I can understand your point better. I do not know if you are masochistc or not, but you are obviously more versed in these discussions than I am, and not as inately annoying as DavidOne. Thank you for honoring me with your response.
“You can neither prove nor disprove creationism OR evolution.”
Really? I’m aware you can neither prove nor disprove the existence of deity (since by convenient definition it’s “unknowable”), but actually science is doing a pretty good job of disproving creationism and proving evolution. Or do you believe that carbon dating is a lie and the fossils were planted by the Devil?
—-
Brian D. I am pleasntly surprised to find out that many people who believe in evolution do also believe in GOD(or religion in whatever form it may be). I honestly was unaware of this. In fact, that is(was) my main problem with people who claim creationists are wrong in their beliefs. It usually SEEMS as if they are saying others were wrong about the existence of GOD because of their views. (I still dont think anyone has come close to proving lower forms of life have in fact evolved into the present ones we seem today). In fact I always try to inject the following line into discussions with people who dont agree with me”Even if evolution is true, it is because GOD created the process to further his work”. Perhaps if proponents of evolution made it more clear to the public in general that thay feel the two are compatible there would be a greater acceptance of their beliefs also. You have made my day knowing that there are dually enlightened people out there. And yes, if you do not believe in GOD you have every right not to, and I would not want to come accross as believing any less. Consider my present rant over.
—-
Let’s begin. I would like to apologize to Mike for this; if I should move this to a different forum, please say so.
First off I would like to apologize for the tone of my rant. I was in a hurry, having a bad day,etc. ect. Secondly, I admire the way you calmly, rationally, and proffessionally took me apart bit by bit, I really do. And of course you are correct that different religions have thier own beliefs about how life originated.
If I came across as abrasive at any point, I must apologize. I’m often rather blunt.
That said, any person’s belief on how life began has *no* bearing on evolution. Evolution explains the *diversity* of life, not its origins, and mixing them up as several creationists do is disingenuous. We currently have several possible theories for the origin of life (abiogenesis in one of its several forms is probably the most likely, but there’s also more exotic ones like panspermia), none of which are as robust as evolution.
I assumed by the context of flymice and DavidOnes post they meant christians soley on the basis that they make up the majority of creationists per capita in the united states. If they meant to insult all creationists equally, I guess that makes thier points much more palletable. Yes, I did mention creationism and climate change, but only to point out that they were the ones who lumped the two arguments to begin with. They are two seperate discussions, that was my point, although admittedly I probably could have done a better job of stating it.
As DavidONE implied and I explicitly said, creationist logic is horribly flawed, as is their understanding of evolution (even what evolution is). Note that this sentence works perfectly well if you swap “creationist” with “AGW denialist” and “evolution” with “climate”. That’s the whole point.
My contention that a billion years from now their ideas would turn out to be wrong, was in fact more sarcastic than a display of my blind conviction. I never stated how old I thought the earth was. That was inferred by you.
It wasn’t meant as an implication of your belief, rather a challenge of the archetypal young-earth creationist.
On a related note, what is the basis for your understanding that the Earth is ~4.6 billion years old? I’m honestly interested at this point, since it’s clear you protest evolution, which is supported by many of the same lines of evidence that tell us the age of the Earth.
The varition of the mosquito in London is just that. A variation of a mosquito, not another organism (such as a “transitional” fly or any other insect).
The London Underground mosquito *is* a separate species.
If you think evolution would predict a mosquito giving birth to a fly, you don’t understand evolution.
Darwin probably never pondered irreduceable complexity either.
Darwin was ~150 years ago now. We’ve come a long way since then. Fixating on ancient understanding is also a technique the climate denialists use, by the way (a common tactic is to attack Mann’s 1998 paleoclimate paper, forgetting that it’s been corroborated by a dozen other studies and updated itself at least three times since then.)
For the record, irreducible complexity is bogus. The archetypal biological example, the flagellum, is remarkably similar to a needle used in (genetically related!) organisms to rupture cell walls. Adding a few extra proteins causes it to spin. FUNCTION is not what is preserved from one evolutionary stage to the next, but rather FORM. (My favorite example would be a gill-reinforcing bone in fish, which can be traced through transitional forms to a jaw-strengthening bone in reptiles, and from there to — of all things — *ossicles* (ear bones) in mammals. The only reason this transition happened is because the bone happened to be in the right spot and happened to have the right physical properties, not that it was serving any auditory function in earlier creatures.)
Behe’s favorite analogy for irreducible complexity is the mousetrap. Of course, this was famously parodied in the Kitzmiller vs. Dover School District trial (which ruled that intelligent design was merely creationism), when Dr. Kenneth Miller (himself a devout Catholic, by the way) testified for evolution while using a mousetrap (without the latch) as a tie clip. (“But it’s irreducibly complex! If you remove the latch, you’re just left with wire, wood, and a spring, and that can’t serve *any* purpose!”). Remember, it’s not necessarily *function* that’s preserved between stages. (That said, it is possible to show how even a mousetrap could have evolved…)
You can neither prove nor disprove creationism OR evolution. To suggest so is disengenuous also.
Incorrect. Look at this logically.
Any positive existential statement bears the burden of proof – i.e. “Life was created”. The null hypothesis is therefore that the evidence about life would be indistinguishable from what it would be if life were not created. The burden of proof falls on the creationist here to support his point and give us grounds to reject the null hypothesis. (Given the Problem of Induction, though, science acknowledges that it cannot prove anything, and thus has a slightly lax requirement for rejection of the null hypothesis. It’s sort of like the difference between “innocent until proven guilty” or “proven beyond reasonable doubt”. But that’s secondary.)
The problem is, there is insufficient grounds to reject the null hypothesis. Creationism based off of Genesis often comes down to “God magically conjured humans out of clay!” or somesuch, for instance, but we see no evidence *anywhere* that conjuration has ever occurred or that it can occur in the first place (it tends to violate thermodynamics, and that makes the baby Feynman cry). Without proposing a mechanism through which such creation took place, the creationist position cannot be considered a scientific alternative in the first place.
On the flipside, it’s trivially simple to show how evolution emerges from three simple principles intrinsic to all life (that all living things die, that those less suited to their environment are more likely to die, and that living creatures reproduce with variation). The theory also makes testable predictions about “transitional forms” that are themselves testable (the earliest example would be dating from Darwin himself; he predicted we’d find a bird with unfused wingbones in strata from the late Jurassic. In 1860, archaeopteryx was discovered in exactly the right strata. However, my favorite obvious transitional form is tiktaalik, mostly because it shows a far more dramatic link (fish to tetrapods) but also because of the extremely poetic nature of its discovery exactly during the Kitzmiller/Dover trial.)
However, you are right. We cannot “prove” evolution since science cannot prove anything. It can merely fail to disprove, and gather supporting evidence.
That said, you are dead wrong about evolution not being able to be disproven (that is, evolution *is* falsifiable). What it take to disprove it? Oh, I don’t know, how about fossil bunnies in the Cambrian?
Please show me a consistent/repeatable example of say, an ape turning into a human being or something else turning into another life form so I can understand your point better.
This is not what evolution predicts, not at all. What’s the highest-level biology education you’ve had? (This isn’t meant to be insulting; it’s meant to gauge how in-depth I should go. A caveat: I am not a biologist myself.)
Still, I mentioned this earlier: Google “observed instances of speciation” and look around a bit. (“Speciation” is the term you’re looking for.)
For the record, humans *are* apes, by definition. This has been known since Linnaeus’ time (long prior to Darwin), and Linnaeus was a creationist himself.
I am pleasntly surprised to find out that many people who believe in evolution do also believe in GOD(or religion in whatever form it may be). I honestly was unaware of this. In fact, that is(was) my main problem with people who claim creationists are wrong in their beliefs.
Strictly speaking no one “believes” in evolution. It is a scientific theory and an observable process.
That said, the key point, that it’s not mutually exclusive with belief in God, is true. (In fact, some theologians have argued against creationists, claiming the creationists are suggesting that God could *not* have created a universe in such a way that life evolves naturally, i.e. that creationists say God is not omnipotent.)
It usually SEEMS as if they are saying others were wrong about the existence of GOD because of their views.
The existence of God is a completely different topic here, although it can be approached the same way (i.e. read Victor Stenger) or through more theological fashions (i.e. read Dan Barker).
Furthermore, there are other scientific theories that would also interfere with creationism (the big bang and abiogenesis come to mind), but those are never addressed in their own right by creationists. Rather, they are all lumped together under the heading “evolutionism” (a made up term) and cast as a false dichotomy against creationism.
For the record, the majority of complaints against creationists do NOT stem from God-based arguments. They stem from the dishonest tactics used by creationists, the outright lies, misinformation, logical fallacies, cherry-picking, moving goalposts, and so on. They stem from the creationists demanding special privileges while they do it, too (for an excellent parody of this, look up Pastafarianism — an alternate, non-Biblical creationist story that applies precisely the same “equal time, teach the controversy” arguments that creationists use to something that’s more transparently absurd).
It’s these same tactics and demands that we find on the climate denialists, by the way.
(I still dont think anyone has come close to proving lower forms of life have in fact evolved into the present ones we seem today).
What you think is wrong, I’m sorry to say.
My favorite example is the ERV (endogenous retrovirus). Essentially, a virus makes a change to an animal’s DNA in a specific spot. All of that animal’s offspring inherit that change in exactly the same spot on the genome, spreading throughout the entire population. This essentially lets us track that organism’s offspring, sort of like an inherited cattle brand. Well, it turns out that one of those populations was the common ancestor that led to both humans and chimpanzees, since humans and chimps share several ERVs in exactly the same spots on our respective genomes. (It is still possible that through some absolutely astronomically low chance event that the same ERVs ended up on two unrelated genomes in exactly the same spots on unrelated species, but this is extremely unlkely.)
There are many other examples, but I’m already running late and I’m not a trained biologist.
In fact I always try to inject the following line into discussions with people who dont agree with me”Even if evolution is true, it is because GOD created the process to further his work”.
Evolution is true. There may be alternate explanations than the one you’ve come to, but the one you’ve come to shows that you have no problem with evolution from a faith perspective. You’re already ahead of many creationists.
I linked the Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism series earlier; I’d also like to append Why Do People Laugh At Creationists?. Both showcase the sheer dishonesty of the typical creationist advocates and how badly they misrepresent and misunderstand science. I hope you can learn something from them; they’re rather accessible.
(Even though the former attacks some conceptions of God early on, it does NOT say God doesn’t exist. Learn to separate the concept of God from dogma when the dogma contradicts reality, and your theological understanding will improve as well.)
Perhaps if proponents of evolution made it more clear to the public in general that thay feel the two are compatible there would be a greater acceptance of their beliefs also.
Those scientists that do study biology and believe in God make it abundantly clear that this is the case. However, since science cannot study God by definition (science studies the natural world, God is by definition supernatural), it is not up to the scientists to talk about God. That’s the theologians’ job. (Look up what the last two Popes have had to say on the subject, by the way.)
You have made my day knowing that there are dually enlightened people out there. And yes, if you do not believe in GOD you have every right not to, and I would not want to come accross as believing any less.
Although I am an atheist (of the null-hypothesis variety, which some consider agnosticism) I never assumed you were coming across poorly. Just poorly-informed — which isn’t permanent, since it can be treated by simple reading and critical inquiry.
I’ll end with a quote from a friend of mine: Get informed, and let it change you.
Mike, it occurs to me that Greenfyre’s might benefit from an Open Thread, as my dialogue with Micetrap has already drifted from the point of this post and similar off-topic dialogues crop up pretty much everywhere. (In this particular case, I could move the discussion here, since it’s reasonably close to on-topic, but I’m thinking of future posts as well.) It’d also serve as a means of folk submitting information for discussion that hasn’t been blogged on just yet.
Ack, leave it to me to not double-check the link. I meant I could move the discussion here.
—-
Another creationist bit of disinformation that they continue to push (which is about 30 years old, like a lot of the “facts” of Intelligent Design) is that there have been no transitional species found. I know that’s no longer true, though I hadn’t heard a lot of specifics. The other day, though, on NPR, I heard about a new find (the guy who found it was VERY excited), a fossil of a turtle with only a bottom shell (which suggested that they had, in fact, adapted to an aquatic environment first, since they’d need protection from predators attacking from below).
The problem with the whole ID thing is that they’re taking the Bible as fact (because the book says so) and conforming their “science” to it, rather than looking at facts and forming a theory from them. That’s no way to get at truth.
[...] according to Jim Inhofe, Harold Ambler speaks for the Huffington Post on the issues of Global [...]
New reader (from Deltoid), first time poster: Greenfyre this is a really great post – thanks for the effort. I am going to reproduce some over at heresysnowboarding.blogspot.com…check your mails shortly.
Cheers,
Tim
—-
The claim to refute Ambler’s statements lacks any statement of science or fact which contradicts what he has said.
In particular, the comment by Ambler concerning the absorption of radiation by carbon dioxide is correct and is clearly seen to be correct by a fairly elementary examination of the physics of carbon dioxide, taking account of the magnitude of its Einstein A (radiation) and B(emission) coefficients and the concentration of carbon dioxide which varies exponentially with height, as do all gases in the atmosphere. To suggest that “carbon dioxide absorbs the radiation and reradiates it up and down” indicates a misunderstanding of the physics of gases in collision with others. The absorbed energy is in fact redistributed as heat to all gas molecules through collisions “of the second kind” which leads to its upward movement by convection. The collision (energy loss) rate is of order 10^9 while the radiative A coefficient is of order 10^5 a factor of 10^4 different. Reradiation by any carbon dioxide, and for that matter most green house gases house gases, is in fact miniscule. The 1 part in 10^4 of the energy which is radiated within the lower to middle, and even upper, troposphere, is almost immediately reabsorbed so the radiation, once absorbed isn’t going anywhere – it is subject to the very well known, (among physicists in gaseous spectroscopy), phenomenon of radiation trapping. Unfortunately climatologists seem to chose to ignore this because it is either convenient for modeling, they don’t understand it or it suits them to use the old fashioned and totally out of date theory of Arrhenius (1895) as suggestd by the IPCC (AR4 2007 Chapter 8 – Scientific Discussion). The modelers are then surprised for some reason that they are unable to show definitively that the models provide correct results for the climate and global temperatures measured over the past 30 years and simply claim that the models won’t work for such short term projections but will be correct in 2050 and 2100 etc. The models don’t work because they receive the wrong type of input for the heat component contributed by green house gases.
John Nicol
—-
Shorter John Nicol: I’ll totally ignore all of Greenfyre’s rebuttal and pretend that they have all been addressed.
frankbi
You got that right.
Spencer, Lindzen, Ball, and Nicol, anyone? Talk about deliberate misinterpretation.
Nicol makes repetitive claims on other climate blogs that there is no evidence (empirical or theoretical) that carbon dioxide emissions from industrial or other human activities can have any effect on global climate, and that there is no consensus among climate scientists.
Nicol needs to read the information on GreenFyre’s and other current and competent sites, along with the studies, real-life observations, and credible scientific evaluations that are hyperlinked. Since he is one of the retirees on Inhofe’s list, he has the time.
Of course he won’t take the time. He can be found claiming that people “underappreciate” the benefits of an increase in carbon dioxide, what with it being the basis for plant growth and all that. And he belittles scientists and the public for worrying about food security, access to clean water, and other almost certain effects of dangerous climate change.
It’s hard to imagine what sort of disdain one has to have for one’s fellow human beings and for the natural world to be in this level of willful denial.
—-
I am amazed that the global warming supporters never actually listen to the critics. The credible scientific sources I read, and indeed Mr. Ambler made this point as well, do not dispute the warming of the Earth. Rather, they dispute the Anthropomorphic nature of the warming and the cataclysmic fear mongering associated with it. [1]
The source for all anthropomorphic global warming supporters are the IPCC reports. The IPCC does not represent the entire scientific community. I am amazed how often the conclusions of the IPCC are linked with the term “consensus”.
In fact, over 31,000 American scientists [2] dispute the claims of the IPCC. Their report provided sound scientifically derived evidence (capable of being checked and not reliant on computer modeling) can be found at [spam deleted].
The video, man made global warming hoax may be easier to digest for individuals unwilling to jump in and actually read raw data. [SPAM DELETED] [3]
I have read all the IPCC reports, [4] the research of skeptics, and every piece of temperature data I can get my hands on. A few things seem certain to me.
The Earth is warming. The warming is part of long term trend extending beyond the Industrial Revolution. The trend is not related to CO2. The effects of the warming are by no means certain. It could be detrimental to the human population or it could be positive. There is not enough evidence to make a conclusion yet.
Finally, I would really enjoy meeting a supporter of Anthropomorphic global warming that has actually read the IPCC reports instead of relying on Al Gore to tell them how to think.
—-