Re: [asa] World sets ocean temperature record

Rich,

I won't even get into UD - I think it was a mistake for them to even start
talking about global warming, and while I like some of their approaches, I'm
not in love with their ID approach either. Lots of mixed signals.

But as I said, the global warming question goes far beyond the reality of
global warming. Personally, I'm more than willing to accept there's a
worldwide trend towards warming - why not? I'm even willing to accept that
it's AGW, and not simply a natural warming trend - an argument I've heard,
and I wonder if people who posit such are also "denialists"? What about
people who accept the warming trend, accept it's man-made (in however large
or small part) but aren't on-board for most of the popular measures?
"Denialists" too?

Anyway, my concern with the AGW comes down to the fact that AGW's truth
doesn't automatically mean that any and every measure proposed to address
the problem is wise. Or even that "absolutely something must be done!" The
Kyoto treaty strikes me as an example of a remarkably bad "solution",
regardless of how popular it was and, seemingly, still is. And if I recall,
the track record of the countries that signed on with the Kyoto treaty
hasn't exactly been stellar.

But there have been some suggestions I've liked. James Lovelock, for
example, was strongly in favor of a major push in the use of nuclear energy.
One could mount one hell of an argument in favor of, say, a global treaty
absolutely mandating the construction of nuclear power plants and cite a
response to AGW as the rationale behind it. I think it's fair to say that
more than a few of the various interest groups, politicians, and outspoken
alarm-sounders of AGW would react to that suggestion with utter shock and
horror, no matter how much evidence could be mounted that such a move would
contribute greatly to the reduction of man's contribution to global
warming/climate change.

For the record, I personally am all in favor of building more nuclear power
plants - and I was absolutely delighted to see engineering advancements made
with mini-nuclear power plant generators, and micro-nukes. I'm a big fan of
ethical advancements in technology (Indeed, I think what humans are capable
of accomplishing with technology constitutes an "ID" argument of its own.)

On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 10:12 AM, Rich Blinne <rich.blinne@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On Aug 23, 2009, at 1:08 AM, Cameron Wybrow wrote:
>
>
> I won't reply to any further discussion on this thread, but in the
> meantime, if Richard and Burgy wish, they can comment on this web article
> and the scholarly literature that it links to:
>
>
> http://www.uncommondescent.com/off-topic/fewer-than-half-of-climate-scientists-endorse-anthropogenic-global-warming/
>
> If they use the search engine on Uncommon Descent, they can type in "global
> warming" and find many other UD articles on the subject. Even if they
> completely disagree with the UD "spin" on the subject, it would at least be
> responsible to check out the *sources* cited by the UD authors before
> automatically declaring them wrong.
>
> Cameron.
>
>
>
> I've had checked out their sources and they are extremely wanting. Marc
> Marano provides the worst kind of deceptive misinformation. If you see his
> name attached to anything run far, far away. The reason why you get such a
> strong response in different areas is because of our expertise. You hear
> from the biologists that UD is lying about biology. You hear from those of
> us who have expertise in the physical sciences that UD is lying about global
> warming. Specifically, I am talking about misrepresenting the absolutely
> huge consensus for both the reality of anthropogenic global warming and
> common descent with modification. You can disagree with these conclusions
> but at least have the academic honesty to state that you are in the EXTREME
> minority. There is a huge consensus in both areas and to state otherwise is
> simply put, lying. For example, in January 2009 the AGU surveyed those who
> publish peer-reviewed climatological papers and 97% hold to anthropogenic
> global warming. The other reason why I react so strongly is the high school
> level errors in their work. Many of us have participated in the peer review
> process and recognize the importance of it. The reason why so few get
> through is not some conspiracy against Christians but their work is wanting.
> If I was peer reviewing their work I would flunk it even though I am
> sympathetic to their Christian views. As Christians, we ought to believe in
> the truth and allowing false papers to go forward just because it was
> submitted by a Christian is academically dishonest and thus at its core,
> anti-Christian.
>
> Even when the papers do get published UD misrepresents the import of it.
> For example, Dembski's recent paper in IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics has
> a concept of active information. What this "means" is the search field can
> transfer information to the genotypes. If you have a search problem that
> doesn't have a lot of potential wells and has "active information" as
> Dembski coins, a search algorithm that is undirected can find a solution.
> Evolution has such a search field. Even though there are many, many
> mutations most of them don't immediately turn us into a pile of goo.
> Problems also can be solved in multiple fashions. That is, there isn't one
> right answer making the search algorithm to work. So, could argue that God
> designed through the evolutionary process by establishing the rules of
> biochemistry that allows for evolution to proceed? I think you can. What you
> cannot conclude, however, that evolution doesn't "work" but that's the warp
> and woof of UD's argument.
>
> UD is not a friendly place for TEs. Any time any of us try to present a
> synthesis of intelligent design and theistic evolution we are usually
> quickly banned. The same is the case if we don't buy into their culture war
> agenda. (I suspect the latter is even more common.) That's why the heat
> turns up here when UD is brought up here. It's not that we are unsympathetic
> to the concept of intelligent design because you if you are a Christian then
> it immediately follows there is an intelligent designer. Rather, we have
> grown tired over the years of the lies and deception done in the name of our
> Lord and Savior and we grieve when young people reject Christianity because
> of it.
>
> Rich Blinne
> Member ASA
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Aug 23 17:31:51 2009