Posted on 12/06/2015 1:40:40 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
Climate skepticism is just bad science: "There is no cohesive, consistent alternative theory to human-caused global warming"
At some point in the history of all scientific theories, only a minority of scientists-or even just one-supported them, before evidence accumulated to the point of general acceptance. The Copernican model, germ theory, the vaccination principle, evolutionary theory, plate tectonics and the big bang theory were all once heretical ideas that became consensus science. How did this happen?
An answer may be found in what 19th-century philosopher of science William Whewell called a 'consilience of inductions." For a theory to be accepted, Whewell argued, it must be based on more than one induction-or a single generalization drawn from specific facts. It must have multiple inductions that converge on one another, independently but in conjunction. "Accordingly the cases in which inductions from classes of facts altogether different have thus jumped together," he wrote in his 1840 book The Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences, "belong only to the best established theories which the history of science contains." Call it a "convergence of evidence."
Consensus science is a phrase often heard today in conjunction with anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Is there a consensus on AGW? There is. The tens of thousands of scientists who belong to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Chemical Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Medical Association, the American Meteorological Society, the American Physical Society, the Geological Society of America, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and, most notably, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change all concur that AGW is in fact real. Why?
It is not because of the sheer number of scientists. After all, science is not conducted by poll. As Albert Einstein said in response to a 1931 book skeptical of relativity theory entitled 100 Authors against Einstein, "Why 100? If I were wrong, one would have been enough." The answer is that there is a convergence of evidence from multiple lines of inquiry-pollen, tree rings, ice cores, corals, glacial and polar ice-cap melt, sea-level rise, ecological shifts, carbon dioxide increases, the unprecedented rate of temperature increase-that all converge to a singular conclusion. AGW doubters point to the occasional anomaly in a particular data set, as if one incongruity gainsays all the other lines of evidence. But that is not how consilience science works. For AGW skeptics to overturn the consensus, they would need to find flaws with all the lines of supportive evidence and show a consistent convergence of evidence toward a different theory that explains the data. (Creationists have the same problem overturning evolutionary theory.) This they have not done.
A 2013 study published in Environmental Research Letters by Australian researchers John Cook, Dana Nuccitelli and their colleagues examined 11,944 climate paper abstracts published from 1991 to 2011. Of those papers that stated a position on AGW, about 97 percent concluded that climate change is real and caused by humans. What about the remaining 3 percent or so of studies? What if they're right? In a 2015 paper published in Theoretical and Applied Climatology, Rasmus Benestad of the Norwegian Meteorological Institute, Nuccitelli and their colleagues examined the 3 percent and found "a number of methodological flaws and a pattern of common mistakes." That is, instead of the 3 percent of papers converging to a better explanation than that provided by the 97 percent, they failed to converge to anything.
"There is no cohesive, consistent alternative theory to human-caused global warming," Nuccitelli concluded in an August 25, 2015, commentary in the Guardian. "Some blame global warming on the sun, others on orbital cycles of other planets, others on ocean cycles, and so on. There is a 97% expert consensus on a cohesive theory that's overwhelmingly supported by the scientific evidence, but the 2-3% of papers that reject that consensus are all over the map, even contradicting each other. The one thing they seem to have in common is methodological flaws like cherry picking, curve fitting, ignoring inconvenient data, and disregarding known physics." For example, one skeptical paper attributed climate change to lunar or solar cycles, but to make these models work for the 4,000-year period that the authors considered, they had to throw out 6,000 years' worth of earlier data.
Such practices are deceptive and fail to further climate science when exposed by skeptical scrutiny, an integral element to the scientific process.
How do you get past...
“Let there be light,†and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,†and the darkness he called “night.†And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
The sun was not created on the first day. The days of Genisis were not solar days. There was no solar morning. No setting of our sun.
Upon what data are you basing your assertion?
“Upon what data are you basing your assertion?”
The Book of Genisis. The sun was created on the third day.
My point is two-fold —
1. God does not measure time the way we do. To Him ‘night’ and ‘day’ and other such words can mean different things besides earth’s solar cycles.
2. A literal interpretation of the oral tradition called Genisis is flawed.
Here’s an example, Noah’s Arc explained by ‘Dan the Man’ ...
https://answers.yahoo.com/activity/questions?show=BAZJUWDTWEDDACUA6EZHPEHENI&t=g
Noah’s flood wasn’t worldwide, it was local. The Hebrew word translated earth “erets” in the flood account can also be translated land. As a matter of fact “erets” is translated “land” 1,476 times in the OT to refer to a limited geographical area. So, when Genesis says, “all the earth was flooded,” it was really, “all the land was flooded.” It was a reference to his civilization.
Other references in Genesis also show that “erets” was used to show specific lands: “The whole land [erets] of Havilah,” “the whole land [erets] of Ethiopia,” “the land [erets] of Nod, on the east of Eden”, Famine at the time of Joseph affected “all lands [erets]”,etc. Also during the plagues upon Egypt, at one point we read that “the rain was not poured upon the earth [erets]” (Ex. 9:33). Do the word study. Try put the word “land” instead of global “earth” and it may make more sense. I believe some Bible translations are misleading.
1. Genesis 7:4 For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.
Also, scripture doesn’t say the ark rested on Mt. Ararat, it says “mountains of Ararat.” That mountain chain peters out into rolling hills in the Euphrates Basin.
According to achealogists digging in the Euphrates basin, they discovered a massive flood covered 40,000 sq. miles of that region at the time of the biblical flood. They discovered a thick layer fresh water laid sediment with completely different civilizations above and below.
The Flood of Genesis was a true historical event. According to historians, and Bible scholars, the date was from November in the year 2345 to November 2344 BC. These dates fall smack in the middle of the period in history known as the BRONZE AGE. (3000 BC to 1200 BC) This was a significant period in history.
Written records dating from this time are, of course, not too plentiful. But one cannot deny the existence of archeological evidence that many great civilizations existed in various parts of the world at the time of the Flood and continued through it. If the Noah’s flood had been universal, all civilizations would have been destroyed along with their inventions, language, art and whatever other advancement each unique civilization would have made. History does not reveal gaps or a large void in any of these cultures which would be the natural result of a catastrophic event such as a global flood.
1. Earliest written records of an advanced civilization are those of the Sumerians in Mesopotamia. Their King Lists date to about 3350 BC. This shows an ongoing civilization well through the period of the flood.
Egypt’s history shows no record of a sudden, complete disruption by a great deluge. The pyramids and other monuments erected there before the time of the flood would surely have been destroyed (or at the very least) badly damaged my a universal flood.
China’s civilization experienced a prosperous period during the Yao Dynasty (between 2400 - 2200) with no record of a cataclysmic interruption.
The Minoan civilization on the island of Crete entered a cycle of cultural advancement about 2500 BC. These people had already produced works of art, established cities, had an alphabet and made use of bronze prior to the date of the Flood. It continued to develop and was established as a center of trade until is was destroyed by a volcano in 1470 BC. Though this civilization was based on and island, there was no evidence of a flood in written or archeological evidence.
The civilization of the Indus Valley was a thriving state in 2500 BC. It boasted of two great cities harappa and Mohenjo-Daro. This civilization rivaled that of Egypt and Mesopotamia and continued to exist uninterrupted until 1500 BC.
More evidence is found in Phoenicia. This was a thriving trade center which existed before, during and after the flood.
These along with other groups, the Japanese, the American Indians, and the ***** tribes of Africa, all survived the period of the Flood. There is no evidence that any of these millions of people suddenly disappeared from history and then suddenly re-appeared all over the world carrying the same culture, art, language, writing and architectural designs — unique to each civilization.
The real tragedy is, when fundamentalists try to make history conform to their false notions about the Bible, it makes both them and God’s Word seem foolish and unrealistic. — Dan the Man
[unquote]
Excellent points.
The author also sets himself up for contradicting himself with the Einstein quote. The Einstein quote says that overwhelming consensus is irrelevant, inferring that it’s political. Einstein is thus providing support for the 2-3% of skeptics, not the 97% consensus bullies.
The use of the comment shows that he’s only interested in using the Einstein quote because he can twist it to “demonstrate” that _Einstein_ supports his view.
The Sun is Hot. It’s not a theory.
1. God does not measure time the way we do. To Him 'night' and 'day' and other such words can mean different things besides earth's solar cycles.
2. A literal interpretation of the oral tradition called Genisis is flawed.
Points taken; but...
1. The book is written for humans and THEIR understanding. What things 'can mean' is specious at best.
2. You'll have to be more clear here. Rambling on about what something or someone else said in another context holds very little water.
If I took someone out of context in my ramblings, please explain.
And BTW, people looking for answers often find our posts in ‘key word’ searches. The initial topic of a thread is often just a starting point. That’s why I ‘ramble’ sometimes — it should help the initial poster of the thread too — and people frequently thank me for those ramblings.
Not OUT of context, but in ANOTHER context:
something or someone else said in another context holds very little water.
The Sun is; if I'm not mistaken; part of the heavens.
Thus it WAS created before day 3.
The Book of Genisis. The sun was created on the third day. #105
“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The Sun is; if I’m not mistaken; part of the heavens.”
In that same chapter, chapter 1 of genisis, it is WRITTEN that the sun was created. [Third day.]
I know it is hard to believe, but people are blinded at times when they read. Yes, the Six Day Wonder Phenomenon is utter bizarre. Few human beings are truly awake.
uups, i meant ‘utterly’ bizarre, not ‘udder’ bizarre.
Some human beings, like me, are always in a hurry.
Oh; I missed it a while ago...
9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear". And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground 'land', and the gathered waters he called 'seas'. And God saw that it was good.
11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds". And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning" the third day.
Dang!
I've missed it again!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.