Is it Game Over on the climate front?

[Daruwind]

Recognizing AWG for what it really is, what the goals really are. The truth of AGW laid bare:

https://canadafreepress.com/article/...-human-history

You want to discuss politics instead of science and facts? No matter what, democracy (or other systems) can choose to ignore it. Nobody is preventing people from being jerks to each other. But it works even other way. What if people decide to do something for future...

See that is trully irrelevant to facts, nature and current situation. Science is science, if you drag politics into it, it is no longer about science....

So back to your post, so there is no temperature rise? No water level rise? No problems with water, food, extreme weather around globe? Nothing we should possibly worry in next 100 years?

You can freely admit you are selfish (not like insult, in terms of caring about rest of world/people )I can fully understand that. But painting science as having aganda....That is no longer proper science to begin with. Facts are facts, they are not caring about politics or if people are kind or selfish..

[Genava]

Recognizing AWG for what it really is, what the goals really are. The truth of AGW laid bare:

https://canadafreepress.com/article/...-human-history

Are you sure of the reliability of your source?
https://canadafreepress.com/article/...h-in-evolution
https://canadafreepress.com/article/...ic-and-madness
https://canadafreepress.com/article/...evolution-hoax
https://canadafreepress.com/article/...-radical-in-th
https://canadafreepress.com/article/...about-vaccines

Back to your article:

"The Climategate cheating scandal exposed man-made global warming theory for what it is: the most brazen scientific hoax in human history, an international collusion to destroy capitalism in the world’s largest capitalist nation to pave the way for that nation’s sovereignty being handed over to a global governing authority run by the United Nations."

Once again with this BS.

UK 'Climategate' inquiry largely clears scientists - The House of Commons' Science and Technology Committee today said they'd seen no evidence to support charges that the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit or its director, Phil Jones, had tampered with data or perverted the peer review.
https://www.deccanherald.com/content...ly-clears.html

British Panel Clears Scientists - Sir Muir Russell, the senior civil servant who led a six-month inquiry into the affair, said the "rigour and honesty" of the scientists at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) were not in doubt.
https://www.theguardian.com/environm...limate-science

Oxburgh Report Clears Controversial Climate Research Unit - "We found absolutely no evidence of impropriety whatsoever," panel Chair Ron Oxburgh, a former geologist and Shell chair, said at a media briefing this morning.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2010...-research-unit

U.S. scientists cleared in 'climategate' - The US Environment Protection Agency (EPA) studied every e-mail that had been hacked at the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU).
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-essex-10899538

Michael Mann Exonerated as Penn State Inquiry Finds 'No Substance' To Allegations - The 2-month inquiry has found that Mann is innocent of the remaining charge of scientific misconduct that had been raised by e-mails uncovered in November.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2010...ce-allegations

No ‘Research Misconduct’ by Climate-Change Scientist, U.S. Says - Finding no “evidence of research misconduct,” the Arlington, Virginia-based National Science Foundation closed its inquiry into Mann
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...tering-inquiry

[B. W.]

Are you sure of the reliability of your source?
https://canadafreepress.com/article/...h-in-evolution
https://canadafreepress.com/article/...ic-and-madness
https://canadafreepress.com/article/...evolution-hoax
https://canadafreepress.com/article/...-radical-in-th
https://canadafreepress.com/article/...about-vaccines

Back to your article:

"The Climategate cheating scandal exposed man-made global warming theory for what it is: the most brazen scientific hoax in human history, an international collusion to destroy capitalism in the world’s largest capitalist nation to pave the way for that nation’s sovereignty being handed over to a global governing authority run by the United Nations."

Once again with this BS.

UK 'Climategate' inquiry largely clears scientists - The House of Commons' Science and Technology Committee today said they'd seen no evidence to support charges that the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit or its director, Phil Jones, had tampered with data or perverted the peer review.
https://www.deccanherald.com/content...ly-clears.html

British Panel Clears Scientists - Sir Muir Russell, the senior civil servant who led a six-month inquiry into the affair, said the "rigour and honesty" of the scientists at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) were not in doubt.
https://www.theguardian.com/environm...limate-science

Oxburgh Report Clears Controversial Climate Research Unit - "We found absolutely no evidence of impropriety whatsoever," panel Chair Ron Oxburgh, a former geologist and Shell chair, said at a media briefing this morning.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2010...-research-unit

U.S. scientists cleared in 'climategate' - The US Environment Protection Agency (EPA) studied every e-mail that had been hacked at the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU).
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-essex-10899538

Michael Mann Exonerated as Penn State Inquiry Finds 'No Substance' To Allegations - The 2-month inquiry has found that Mann is innocent of the remaining charge of scientific misconduct that had been raised by e-mails uncovered in November.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2010...ce-allegations

No ‘Research Misconduct’ by Climate-Change Scientist, U.S. Says - Finding no “evidence of research misconduct,” the Arlington, Virginia-based National Science Foundation closed its inquiry into Mann
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...tering-inquiry

Wow! That's a lot of links!

I've already told you that I'm not going to go through a list of links wasting my time (hey, I'm old, I have other things to do too, ya know). So, I'll take the first link you posted.

I'm assuming you posted it in order to discredit the publication I sourced. While that may be possible if you go through and pick out a specific article, this doesn't meet the bill. I don't see anything problematic in the article at all. I can only assume that you, having embraced a climate theory with many problems that claims it is the definitive science would also embrace another theory that has many problems as scientific fact. The article simply points out that Darwin's theory on the Origin Of Species is problematic.

While it is true that there are certain narrow aspects of Darwin's theory that are scientifically provable does that make the whole theory valid? The answer, of course, is no.

The same goes for the AGW theory. I will agree that there are some aspects that are scientifically valid. That doesn't make the theory valid. there are many problems with it, not to mention that fact that much of the data has been configured to make the computer models match the expected outcome. This is hardly a scientific approach.

But since you started with Darwin's theory, here a seven minute video that blows the fundamental basis for Darwin's Origin Of Species out of the water:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16ZF-9ZjPAU

[B. W.]

Yeah! AGW "scientists" squealing like pigs on fire because they're afraid their fake science and funding might be cut off:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/no...OmW?li=BBnb7Kz

[Genava]

Yeah! AGW "scientists" squealing like pigs on fire because they're afraid their fake science and funding might be cut off:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/no...OmW?li=BBnb7Kz

You are happy that someone from the Heartland Institute and with previous relations with the Koch brothers (funding his researches) has been hired at the NOAA?

In the past, you had not shown such enthusiasm:

OMG! A professor from Berkeley conducts a study funded by the globalist Koch brothers and concludes that the IPCC report is spot on. What a surprise!

Probably it is true only when the scientist conforts you in your beliefs.

Anyway, this new Lysenkoist moves from Trump administration won't have any real effect. David Legates is still under Neil Jacobs.

But since you started with Darwin's theory, here a seven minute video that blows the fundamental basis for Darwin's Origin Of Species out of the water:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16ZF-9ZjPAU

I am not surprised people with little scientific background get easily impressed by big numbers. If you don't have the tools, you cannot distinguish BS from real argument.

The biggest issue is to approach the problem from a sucession of one-time events perspective. A sequential trial instead of simultaneous. This is making the probability to make a protein much more rarer. That's a deceptive trick.

Furthermore, it continues in the deception by implying the protein are directly built from amino acids out of nowhere. This is not the case, to build protein you need peptides. Either as a building block or as enzymes that purposely do the job.

One of the basic self-replicating enzyme is a peptide of 32 amino acids long. https://www.nature.com/articles/382525a0
So what, 1 chance in 4.3*10^40. Much lower than Stephen C Meyer example.

The average molecular weight of amino acids is around 120 g/mol. In a single kilogram, there is enough to build approximately 1.5*10^23 version of the self-replicating peptide. Imagine there is 1.5*10^23 trials at each step, it will took 2.87*10^17 trials to get the peptide. And contrary to Stephen C Meyer claim, this is not done one trial after another each second, chemical reactions are much more rapid.

[B. W.]

You are happy that someone from the Heartland Institute and with previous relations with the Koch brothers (funding his researches) has been hired at the NOAA?

In the past, you had not shown such enthusiasm:


Probably it is true only when the scientist conforts you in your beliefs.

Anyway, this new Lysenkoist moves from Trump administration won't have any real effect. David Legates is still under Neil Jacobs.

You're being a bit disingenuous here. You left out the part where I explained the relationship between the Koch brothers and that institute. Maybe you missed it. No matter, the WaPo seemed to think it was going to affect funding. In any reference of regard it still represents a change of direction, which is good.

I am not surprised people with little scientific background get easily impressed by big numbers. If you don't have the tools, you cannot distinguish BS from real argument.

The biggest issue is to approach the problem from a sucession of one-time events perspective. A sequential trial instead of simultaneous. This is making the probability to make a protein much more rarer. That's a deceptive trick.

Furthermore, it continues in the deception by implying the protein are directly built from amino acids out of nowhere. This is not the case, to build protein you need peptides. Either as a building block or as enzymes that purposely do the job.

One of the basic self-replicating enzyme is a peptide of 32 amino acids long. https://www.nature.com/articles/382525a0
So what, 1 chance in 4.3*10^40. Much lower than Stephen C Meyer example.

The average molecular weight of amino acids is around 120 g/mol. In a single kilogram, there is enough to build approximately 1.5*10^23 version of the self-replicating peptide. Imagine there is 1.5*10^23 trials at each step, it will took 2.87*10^17 trials to get the peptide. And contrary to Stephen C Meyer claim, this is not done one trial after another each second, chemical reactions are much more rapid.

Wow! I see you have made the transition from "meteorologist and AGW scientist" to that of a "cellular biologist".

Congratulations! That's quite an accomplishment!

Now I'm not strong in biology by any stretch of the imagination, but I do find it odd that a "cellular biologist" like yourself would make the leap from functioning peptides to functioning proteins. Incredible! But after some thought, I realized that you effectively placed belief in imaginary data (that's essentially what manipulated data is) in the case promoting the AGW theory, so it shouldn't be surprising that you use the same process (what ever that is) to get from functioning peptides to functioning proteins.

I used to give Darwin's theory pride of place as an example of proven "science". I eventually came to realize that it's proponents have been claiming since the 1950s that they were very close to having undeniable proof of evolution as the origin of species. Each new breakthrough was initially claimed to be the keystone that would lead to that discovery. What they found was that it only created more obstacles for the Darwinists or materialists, which ever you like to be called.

Darwinists, with their reputations at stake use childish tactics to shut up opponents: "He doesn't believe in evolution!", and use that to destroy reputations and ruin careers. But we're not talking about evolution here. That is a given; meaning it is pretty well agreed upon. What Meyer was talking about is the question of what triggered evolution. There is a difference.

At this point, my problem with Darwin's theory is that it is taught as proven theory when it is not and the very same claims are made by the AGW crowd.

edit: I forgot to mention that he does talk about peptides If you didn't see that, you didn't bother to watch the whole seven minute video. Why am I not surprised?

[irontaino]

So this exchange of Genava posting data and sources with B.W. retorting with either Breitbart articles or numbers he pretends to understand has been going on for months. Is there anything left to be gained from this? Guess we can thank Genava for the goldmine of data for future debates.

[Daruwind]

So this exchange of Genava posting data and sources with B.W. retorting with either Breitbart articles or numbers he pretends to understand has been going on for months. Is there anything left to be gained from this? Guess we can thank Genava for the goldmine of data for future debates.

Looks like we are covering more and more topics. Now schort course into Biology. So the whole thread is besically how to debunk various crappy/hoax theories... I´m jsut waiting when B.W. will proclaim Earth to be flat or that there is lizard civilization in midle of Earth.

[Genava]

Looks like we are covering more and more topics. Now schort course into Biology. So the whole thread is besically how to debunk various crappy/hoax theories... I´m jsut waiting when B.W. will proclaim Earth to be flat or that there is lizard civilization in midle of Earth.

At least I got a good grasp of deep american culture

Wow! I see you have made the transition from "meteorologist and AGW scientist" to that of a "cellular biologist".

I am graduated in Earth sciences with a specialisation in geochemistry and water protection. A bit of paleontology, plant ecology and microbiology were a part of my studies.

Now I'm not strong in biology by any stretch of the imagination, but I do find it odd that a "cellular biologist" like yourself would make the leap from functioning peptides to functioning proteins.

Because there is no argument made by Meyer for a functioning protein being the "beginning of life" on Earth. This is actually the opposite of what is hypothesised about abiogenesis. He choose a functioning protein as a convenient example. I choose a functioning peptide as a convenient example, simply to point out the flaw in his method.

You are not strong in biology so I will tell you this: the production of functioning proteins in your body is absolutely not following sequences of random trials from amino acids. So it means that at some point the biochemistry evolved to be able to produce complex compounds without relying on random trials.

Meyer made a strawman argument from his interpretation of abiogenesis as purely the result of random processes. Even chemical reactions in various environments are not purely random processes, it obeys laws for preferential reactions or pathways according the conditions and the reactants.

The biggest flaw in the intelligent design view of abiogenesis is that at some point, the chemistry of building blocks for life became less and less random and more like the actual biochemistry.

Abiogenesis is still a debated topic in science but the leading hypothesis is about RNA chains. Nucleic acids can easily form short chains of RNA and each chain of RNA can meet another complementary chain of RNA, which greatly increases the probability to get a functioning genetic expression.

So the question is mostly about which level of complexity you need to reach before to start a "chain-of-reactions" leading to preferential (therefore unrandom) production of functioning proteins.

Darwinists, with their reputations at stake use childish tactics to shut up opponents: "He doesn't believe in evolution!", and use that to destroy reputations and ruin careers. But we're not talking about evolution here. That is a given; meaning it is pretty well agreed upon. What Meyer was talking about is the question of what triggered evolution. There is a difference.

I didn't say anything about evolution. I am simply saying the demonstration made by Meyer is deceptive and unconvincing. And I was implying that canadafreepress is not a reliable source of information. I added examples from their rant against evolution theory yes, because they are good examples of unreliability. This is not due to their lack of beliefs but to their purposely deceptive argumentation on the topic.

At this point, my problem with Darwin's theory is that it is taught as proven theory when it is not and the very same claims are made by the AGW crowd.

Are you familiar with Karl Popper concept of refutability? A mathematic theorem can be proven but a scientific theory not.

edit: I forgot to mention that he does talk about peptides If you didn't see that, you didn't bother to watch the whole seven minute video. Why am I not surprised?

He is talking about peptides bonds, not peptides directly and what he is saying is not relevant for my point.

Incredible! But after some thought, I realized that you effectively placed belief in imaginary data (that's essentially what manipulated data is) in the case promoting the AGW theory, so it shouldn't be surprising that you use the same process (what ever that is) to get from functioning peptides to functioning proteins.

It doesn't look like imaginary data but you can call it imaginary if you want.

Radiative forcing ‐ measured at Earth's surface ‐ corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley....9/2003GL018765

Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997
https://www.nature.com/articles/35066553

Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14240

Global atmospheric downward longwave radiation over land surface under all‐sky conditions from 1973 to 2008
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley....9/2009JD011800

[B. W.]

At least I got a good grasp of deep american culture



I am graduated in Earth sciences with a specialisation in geochemistry and water protection. A bit of paleontology, plant ecology and microbiology were a part of my studies.

So you're saying you got a Master's Degree. That's great! Everyone takes an odd spattering of courses in their studies. I studied electronics and history with an odd spattering of courses. Back then a single printed circuit with a single transistor was a bit larger than a postage stamp. I'll never forget the first time I saw one. At the time, it seemed truly impressive. Things have changed.

Because there is no argument made by Meyer for a functioning protein being the "beginning of life" on Earth. This is actually the opposite of what is hypothesised about abiogenesis. He choose a functioning protein as a convenient example. I choose a functioning peptide as a convenient example, simply to point out the flaw in his method.

You are not strong in biology so I will tell you this: the production of functioning proteins in your body is absolutely not following sequences of random trials from amino acids. So it means that at some point the biochemistry evolved to be able to produce complex compounds without relying on random trials.

While it is true that a functioning peptide is required to form a functioning protein the complexity is vastly different. I highlighted the word evolved because it is your great leap of faith. Darwin's Theory on the Origin of Species does not explain it. How did this evolution take place? What made it happen? If you think about the requirements and probability, the Darwin approach means intelligent life in the universe is going to be quite rare, if even possible. If you follow the ID approach life is going to be just about anywhere the ingredients are present. I think we can agree at least that we are not alone in the universe.

Since it appears that neither of us are biologists, lets take a look at what some real biologists with doctorates have to say about the probability concerning the formation of a functioning protein in nine minutes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1_KEVaCyaA

And I do wish AGW proponents would quit claiming the actions involved with how cloud/water vapor affects the atmosphere is completely and definitively understood. It isn't.

[Genava]

So you're saying you got a Master's Degree. That's great! Everyone takes an odd spattering of courses in their studies. I studied electronics and history with an odd spattering of courses. Back then a single printed circuit with a single transistor was a bit larger than a postage stamp. I'll never forget the first time I saw one. At the time, it seemed truly impressive. Things have changed.


While it is true that a functioning peptide is required to form a functioning protein the complexity is vastly different. I highlighted the word evolved because it is your great leap of faith.

The word evolution is not only used for the theory, it is also used to describe a phenomenon, the gradual process of change and development. Whatever the cause.

My point is: the production of proteins is currently not due to random trials from amino acids as described by intelligent design proponents. So it rises the possibility that the first protein was not produced by random trials from amino acids either.

If you think about the requirements and probability, the Darwin approach means intelligent life in the universe is going to be quite rare, if even possible.

Only if you are convinced by ID demonstration (and by other stuff of ID, I don't know if you are convincing by their argument against evolution of new species from natural selection for example). But as I said, I only saw deceptive demonstration, scaring the audience with big numbers. I pointed out several flaws in their demonstration. Most people defending abiogenesis also thinks of widespread life in the universe, so it seems you are ignoring their point of view.

If you follow the ID approach life is going to be just about anywhere the ingredients are present. I think we can agree at least that we are not alone in the universe.

Only if the intelligent being wanted so.

Since it appears that neither of us are biologists, lets take a look at what some real biologists with doctorates have to say about the probability concerning the formation of a functioning protein in nine minutes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1_KEVaCyaA

I see three persons. Two have a real background in biology.

Paul Nelson, partisan of younger Earth hypothesis: https://www.amazon.com.au/Case-Young.../dp/B007MEUQCE
Ann Gauger. https://scholar.google.com/citations...sortby=pubdate
Timothy G. Standish. https://www.grisda.org/tim-standish

I find the two biologists excessively interested in theology (they are writing more about God than about biology). So you tried to make argument by appealing to their authority but I remain unconvinced of their so-called authority.

The video itself is based on Meyer demonstration (he is quoted in the sources) so I already pointed out several issues. The only things new are the short interviews of the three persons above. But basically they are defending the precedent demonstration and further adding that anyway any basic molecula will be useless without the others. But still their reasoning seems fallacious to me. They took an example I already criticized as being deceptive and purposely made to render the abiogenesis as impossible. Now they are simply saying that by applying the same method to other molecula they find the same impossibility and it is further impossible because they should all appear to create life.

An unconvincing method applied thousands time gives thousands of unconvincing conclusions. I pointed out some flaws in the method, the probability are much much lower to have the basic molecula necessary to life.

I used to give Darwin's theory pride of place as an example of proven "science". I eventually came to realize that it's proponents have been claiming since the 1950s that they were very close to having undeniable proof of evolution as the origin of species. Each new breakthrough was initially claimed to be the keystone that would lead to that discovery. What they found was that it only created more obstacles for the Darwinists or materialists, which ever you like to be called.

A small addendum about this statement. Abiogenesis is not directly a topic of biological evolution. Evolution is about biological processes and about the transformation of the living, not the origin of biological processes and of life itself. Even the book of Darwin didn't talk about the origin of life in such ways.

See: https://evolution-outreach.biomedcen...052-010-0209-1

What make the strength of evolution as a theory is to produce a comprehensive framework to explain what we observe (in the labs, in the fossil record, in biological conservation etc.). From this we can build hypotheses and protocols, perform experiments and further build more knowledge. The theory is based on natural selection, sexual selection, heredity, genetic mutation, genetic recombination, genetic drift, developmental constraints and biogeography (population ecology). Those does not explain abiogenesis, it is not a part of the theory.

If you think this established theory has been challenged, please provide evidences for it.

The only think where you are right is about materialism. Yes the scientific theory of evolution and abiogenesis are both grounded in a materialistic vision of the world we inherited from the Enlightenment. But materialism is not a scientific theory per se.

And I do wish AGW proponents would quit claiming the actions involved with how cloud/water vapor affects the atmosphere is completely and definitively understood. It isn't.

Do you admit we are measuring an increase of the greenhouse effect?

Radiative forcing ‐ measured at Earth's surface ‐ corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley....9/2003GL018765

Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997
https://www.nature.com/articles/35066553

Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14240

Global atmospheric downward longwave radiation over land surface under all‐sky conditions from 1973 to 2008
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley....9/2009JD011800

[B. W.]

The word evolution is not only used for the theory, it is also used to describe a phenomenon, the gradual process of change and development. Whatever the cause.

My point is: the production of proteins is currently not due to random trials from amino acids as described by intelligent design proponents. So it rises the possibility that the first protein was not produced by random trials from amino acids either.



Only if you are convinced by ID demonstration (and by other stuff of ID, I don't know if you are convincing by their argument against evolution of new species from natural selection for example). But as I said, I only saw deceptive demonstration, scaring the audience with big numbers. I pointed out several flaws in their demonstration. Most people defending abiogenesis also thinks of widespread life in the universe, so it seems you are ignoring their point of view.



Only if the intelligent being wanted so.



I see three persons. Two have a real background in biology.

Paul Nelson, partisan of younger Earth hypothesis: https://www.amazon.com.au/Case-Young.../dp/B007MEUQCE
Ann Gauger. https://scholar.google.com/citations...sortby=pubdate
Timothy G. Standish. https://www.grisda.org/tim-standish

I find the two biologists excessively interested in theology (they are writing more about God than about biology). So you tried to make argument by appealing to their authority but I remain unconvinced of their so-called authority.

The video itself is based on Meyer demonstration (he is quoted in the sources) so I already pointed out several issues. The only things new are the short interviews of the three persons above. But basically they are defending the precedent demonstration and further adding that anyway any basic molecula will be useless without the others. But still their reasoning seems fallacious to me. They took an example I already criticized as being deceptive and purposely made to render the abiogenesis as impossible. Now they are simply saying that by applying the same method to other molecula they find the same impossibility and it is further impossible because they should all appear to create life.

An unconvincing method applied thousands time gives thousands of unconvincing conclusions. I pointed out some flaws in the method, the probability are much much lower to have the basic molecula necessary to life.



A small addendum about this statement. Abiogenesis is not directly a topic of biological evolution. Evolution is about biological processes and about the transformation of the living, not the origin of biological processes and of life itself. Even the book of Darwin didn't talk about the origin of life in such ways.

See: https://evolution-outreach.biomedcen...052-010-0209-1

What make the strength of evolution as a theory is to produce a comprehensive framework to explain what we observe (in the labs, in the fossil record, in biological conservation etc.). From this we can build hypotheses and protocols, perform experiments and further build more knowledge. The theory is based on natural selection, sexual selection, heredity, genetic mutation, genetic recombination, genetic drift, developmental constraints and biogeography (population ecology). Those does not explain abiogenesis, it is not a part of the theory.

If you think this established theory has been challenged, please provide evidences for it.

The only think where you are right is about materialism. Yes the scientific theory of evolution and abiogenesis are both grounded in a materialistic vision of the world we inherited from the Enlightenment. But materialism is not a scientific theory per se.



Do you admit we are measuring an increase of the greenhouse effect?

Radiative forcing ‐ measured at Earth's surface ‐ corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley....9/2003GL018765

Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997
https://www.nature.com/articles/35066553

Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14240

Global atmospheric downward longwave radiation over land surface under all‐sky conditions from 1973 to 2008
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley....9/2009JD011800

Hmmm, well, I was hoping we would eventually get to this stage of the discussion on Darwin theory. Technically, it is off subject, but not if you consider that you used it to discredit an publication that ran an article questioning climate theory. In effect, you criticized a publication's credibility because they ran an article critical of Darwin theory. That inevitably requires a sub discussion to determine one way or another your assertion.

Since you seem to think it is a simple matter of chemistry let's hear from a person who might arguably considered one of the world's greatest chemists:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4sP1E1Jd_Y

And in keeping with the "program" as it were, here is an excerpt from the first link you provided on climate. It is something of a qualifier:

Yet to our knowledge, radiative forcing and its direct relation to surface temperature and humidity changes, has not been observationally examined in depth and over long time periods with radiation budget measurements at Earth's surface.

[Genava]

And in keeping with the "program" as it were, here is an excerpt from the first link you provided on climate. It is something of a qualifier:

Yet to our knowledge, radiative forcing and its direct relation to surface temperature and humidity changes, has not been observationally examined in depth and over long time periods with radiation budget measurements at Earth's surface.

That's the most unintelligent and childish thing you never done here. This article from 2003 is simply saying this hasn't been done before them. Here the same excerpt with the previous and the following sentences:

Changes of the Earth's outgoing longwave radiation [Harries et al., 2001; Wielicki et al., 2002] have been reported also from satellite measurements. Yet to our knowledge, radiative forcing and its direct relation to surface temperature and humidity changes, has not been observationally examined in depth and over long time periods with radiation budget measurements at Earth's surface. Here we present the changes and trends of radiative fluxes at the surface and their relation to greenhouse gas increases and temperature and humidity changes measured from 1995 to 2002 at eight stations of the Alpine Surface Radiation Budget (ASRB) network. ASRB stations (Table 1) are located between 370 and 3580 m a.s.l., and over an area of about 200 by 200 km square in the Alps (central Europe, latitude ≈46°N.

Furthermore, this is to provide the information you already read in the summary:

However, after subtracting for two thirds of temperature and humidity rises, the increase of cloud‐free longwave downward radiation (+1.8(0.8) Wm−2) remains statistically significant and demonstrates radiative forcing due to an enhanced greenhouse effect.

You are not a toddler so do not behave like one.

Hmmm, well, I was hoping we would eventually get to this stage of the discussion on Darwin theory. Technically, it is off subject, but not if you consider that you used it to discredit an publication that ran an article questioning climate theory. In effect, you criticized a publication's credibility because they ran an article critical of Darwin theory. That inevitably requires a sub discussion to determine one way or another your assertion.

Since you seem to think it is a simple matter of chemistry let's hear from a person who might arguably considered one of the world's greatest chemists:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4sP1E1Jd_Y

As I said, abiogenesis is not a part of Darwin theory nor evolution theory. If you want to talk about evolution, I don't see the point to watch this video. Unless you want to remain on the topic of abiogenesis.

[B. W.]

That's the most unintelligent and childish thing you never done here. This article from 2003 is simply saying this hasn't been done before them. Here the same excerpt with the previous and the following sentences:

Furthermore, this is to provide the information you already read in the summary:

You are not a toddler so do not behave like one.

Your faux-semblant outrage here is illuminating. I merely quoted an excerpt from the article you posted which described it as exactly what it was; a preliminary study. This is not unusual for scientists who are looking for more money to do an in-depth long term study (admittedly, I don't know if that's the case here, but it appears so).

As I said, abiogenesis is not a part of Darwin theory nor evolution theory. If you want to talk about evolution, I don't see the point to watch this video. Unless you want to remain on the topic of abiogenesis.

So, what you've done here is try to discredit an article about the problems with Darwin's Origin of species because you believe in an even less credible theory. The things that Dr.Tour lays out in the video makes the cause for abiogenises completely impossible.

Comets carrying organic lifeforms does not necessarily mean those lifeforms "evolved" in space no more than evidence of life found in Martian rocks means the the life formed in transit from Mars to Earth.

The simple fact here is that you are faced with a paradox. If you admit that the article I submitted is credible, which I have proven that it is; Tours presentation, then you also lose your argument that the publication is not credible and by extension, the article outlying the problems with the AGW theory is credible.

Now you have three major choices concerning evolution:

a) Darwin's theory: most people claim that there is a scientific consensus in favor of that theory. Dr. Tours explained this in some detail. That presents another problem for AGW proponents. If the consensus about Darwin's Origin of Species Theory is found to be in error and scientifically implausible (and everything points to this), then one could argue that such "consensus" is built on a fabric of assumptions. (in the case of AGW theory, it is built on a fabric of manipulated data).

b) Creation theory: this is an ancient theory proposed and backed strictly by fundamentalist religions and has absolutely no scientific basis.

c) Intelligent design: This theory in its simplest form states that everything concerned with the formation of life indicates that it was designed because an information code is required for it to occur. Atheist academics and academics who have promoted and preached Darwinism are opposed to this for a number of reasons, not one of which is scientific. For instance, the atheists are against it because they believe that it throws the creationists a bone and arguably it does. That does not, however, mean that intelligent design scientifically supports Creationism.

You listed the anti-Darwin article as proof that the publication wasn't credible. Will you now admit you made a mistake?

[Genava]

Your faux-semblant outrage here is illuminating. I merely quoted an excerpt from the article you posted which described it as exactly what it was; a preliminary study. This is not unusual for scientists who are looking for more money to do an in-depth long term study (admittedly, I don't know if that's the case here, but it appears so).

Again childish comment. You cherry-picked a quote of the study without taking in consideration what the article brings of new. Furthermore this article is from 2003 and I gave you two other articles that continues in this direction, confirming the same observations and giving further information.

But honestly, I wasn't expecting a better attitude of you.

You listed the anti-Darwin article as proof that the publication wasn't credible. Will you now admit you made a mistake?

I listed three articles against evolution theory, an article against vaccines and an article labelling Obama as an illegal president.

No article about abiogenesis. You are the one bringing this stuff here.

Intelligent design: This theory in its simplest form states that everything concerned with the formation of life indicates that it was designed because an information code is required for it to occur. Atheist academics and academics who have promoted and preached Darwinism are opposed to this for a number of reasons, not one of which is scientific. For instance, the atheists are against it because they believe that it throws the creationists a bone and arguably it does. That does not, however, mean that intelligent design scientifically supports Creationism.

You are probably unaware of what is really about the theory you choose to believe. Intelligent design is not only about the origin of life. They have also contradicting view on how life evolves.

[B. W.]

Again childish comment. You cherry-picked a quote of the study without taking in consideration what the article brings of new. Furthermore this article is from 2003 and I gave you two other articles that continues in this direction, confirming the same observations and giving further information.

But honestly, I wasn't expecting a better attitude of you.



I listed three articles against evolution theory, an article against vaccines and an article labelling Obama as an illegal president.

No article about abiogenesis. You are the one bringing this stuff here.



You are probably unaware of what is really about the theory you choose to believe. Intelligent design is not only about the origin of life. They have also contradicting view on how life evolves.

Way back shortly after I entered the discussion in this thread I recognized that your approach to persuasion was to indiscriminately and haphazardly post a wall of links to try to prove your point and I have repeatedly cautioned you that I would not sift trough them all. The fact that you posted a link claiming that the publication is not credible because it criticized Darwin is on you. You entered an argument you were destined to lose by the shear laziness of posting a wall of links you didn't properly research (this is typical for an "AGW Scientist").

Going further, you made it quite clear that you believe I'm not competent because of a simple maths mistake. Moving further with that same sort of recognition you say the publication I linked to isn't a reputable source because they published a questionable and subjective-based story on Obama. With that same sort of reasoning I challenge you to do the same thing with Nature because they ran a story by climate scientists that contained a major scientific maths blunder by a whole team of "scientists". Keep in mind this story was peer reviewed:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0651-8

Now what's it gonna be? Nature is not a reliable source because they ran a fraudulent article even though they have also ran accurate articles. Where does your equivocation end? Do you have a constant standard here or is it what suits you at the time? Is Nature a reliable source even though they printed a fraudulent article with a major mathematical error? If so, then the credibility of my source must be reconsidered. Will you not even admit that?

Additionally, I didn't bring up abiogenesis, you did, when you tried to duck away from answering the question I raised on origin of species. Now your moving the goal posts again by claiming that ID is not just about the origin of life. Origin of life was exactly what we were talking about, nothing else; not Natural Selection, not sabre toothed tigers, just origin. I assumed you knew the difference.

You say you listed three articles that were against evolution theory, which clearly indicates you are a Darwinist and at the same time you say you're not, but instead lean towards abiogenesis. Which is it?

The one constant here is that you continually contradict yourself and then wiggle a little and WaLa! The tune changes.

[Daruwind]

Way back shortly after I entered the discussion in this thread I recognized that your approach to persuasion was to indiscriminately and haphazardly post a wall of links to try to prove your point and I have repeatedly cautioned you that I would not sift trough them all. The fact that you posted a link claiming that the publication is not credible because it criticized Darwin is on you. You entered an argument you were destined to lose by the shear laziness of posting a wall of links you didn't properly research (this is typical for an "AGW Scientist").

This is pure gold! So you are basically saying that you are unable to work with multiple sources, that if we copy material into one page or one video, that´s okey but having two short paragraphs over two pages will disqualified stuff and that nobody can win argument with you just because.

Well difference between you and nature is, nature can admit mistake publicly and not like you saying math is hard or that it is too much pages to read on. I would love to have you as student in my courses, that would be fun. I was just compiling and sending list of literature for Nuclear and Particle physics lab course, experiments. Around 10 books and various sources. I have never ever got question if student can get just a wiki link or something like 5 minutes video "how to detector" You made my day!

[B. W.]

This is pure gold! So you are basically saying that you are unable to work with multiple sources, that if we copy material into one page or one video, that´s okey but having two short paragraphs over two pages will disqualified stuff and that nobody can win argument with you just because.

Well difference between you and nature is, nature can admit mistake publicly and not like you saying math is hard or that it is too much pages to read on. I would love to have you as student in my courses, that would be fun. I was just compiling and sending list of literature for Nuclear and Particle physics lab course, experiments. Around 10 books and various sources. I have never ever got question if student can get just a wiki link or something like 5 minutes video "how to detector" You made my day!

This is laughable! The Nature article took a year to be retracted and it was only done when an AGW opponent went public about the maths error. I made my retraction in a day. This is typical for you guys. A whole team of AGW "scientists" make a major maths blunder, wait a year to correct it, and then only after they are forced to. To make matters worse they lied again about the retraction. They said they had to do it because of an "under estimation" when in fact it was an over estimation. And, of course, all this is not problematic to you.

And as for the videos, let me ask you: How do you teach? Do you just issue a reading assignment or do you take the time to give lectures? Perhaps you just post a wall of links on the board and say "There you are. My job is done". The videos are simply doing what a teacher would do in a classroom. I guess that's problematic for you. I have to wonder if any of your students will go on to achieve anything, especially when you are teaching them baseless science as fact and continually demonstrating that it's OK to make the data conform to the result you are trying to achieve. Hmmm, come to think of it, that's exactly what a lot of Physicists do.

As for posting a wall of "links", what's the matter, are you afraid to discuss on a point by point basis? It's obvious the reason why you guys do this. You can muddy the water and misdirect, changes the goal posts, etc.

You've seen what happens when the discussion is narrowed down to a single item such as Darwin's Origin of Species. It was shattered. It simply is not workable and yet "G" tried to deflect by mentioning Natural Selection, as if that is the same thing. It clearly is not, but I would bet that you tell your students that Origin of Species is proven science.

What we see time and time again by AGW folks like yourself is manipulation of data, false stories affecting the reputation of publications like Nature (remember a year to retract a story), conspiracy to cover up data manipulation (the e-mail scandal), deflection when you get in a jam, etc.

Tell me, do you tell your students it's OK to manipulate data?

What your comment exhibits is just another version of the AGW craw fish dance.

[Genava]

Darwin's theory: most people claim that there is a scientific consensus in favor of that theory. Dr. Tours explained this in some detail. That presents another problem for AGW proponents. If the consensus about Darwin's Origin of Species Theory is found to be in error and scientifically implausible (and everything points to this), then one could argue that such "consensus" is built on a fabric of assumptions. (in the case of AGW theory, it is built on a fabric of manipulated data).

You've seen what happens when the discussion is narrowed down to a single item such as Darwin's Origin of Species. It was shattered. It simply is not workable and yet "G" tried to deflect by mentioning Natural Selection, as if that is the same thing. It clearly is not, but I would bet that you tell your students that Origin of Species is proven science.

Once again, the theory of evolution does not explain abiogenesis. It doesn't address it. Nor Darwin's Origin of Species. You are doing your maximum to ignore this fact but the theory of evolution is applied to living things. All the principles derived from the theory of evolution does not apply to abiogenesis which is more a chemical topic.

We didn't argue about evolution. You had the feeling we were.

I criticized canadafreepress, your source, because of their opposition against evolution. Then your misconception bring you to start a debate about the origin of life or abiogenesis. You added a video of Meyer talking specifically about it:

But since you started with Darwin's theory, here a seven minute video that blows the fundamental basis for Darwin's Origin Of Species out of the water:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16ZF-9ZjPAU

You started it. Not I.

Additionally, I didn't bring up abiogenesis, you did, when you tried to duck away from answering the question I raised on origin of species.

I am not surprised you don't know the difference between the "Origin of Species" and the "Origin of Life". I am not surprised you didn't even try to understand what is the theory of evolution before to get your opinion on it. You did the same with climate change.

Intelligent design: This theory in its simplest form states that everything concerned with the formation of life indicates that it was designed because an information code is required for it to occur. Atheist academics and academics who have promoted and preached Darwinism are opposed to this for a number of reasons, not one of which is scientific. For instance, the atheists are against it because they believe that it throws the creationists a bone and arguably it does. That does not, however, mean that intelligent design scientifically supports Creationism.

I will make an important point that you will not understand, at best it's going to upset you.

The hypothesis of God or any sort of intelligent being is not a scientific hypothesis. You cannot prove it and you cannot refute it. There is no protocol for that.

Anything related to God or an intelligent design is refutation-proof.

I cannot give you a conclusive answer on abiogenesis because no scientist can. This is still a topic with a lot of unknowns. There is no convincing explanation for abiogenesis yet.

But when there is unknown or uncertainty, scientists see it only as an excitement, another expedition to explore new frontiers.

People choosing the intelligent design are simply choosing the most boring and the laziest path. People choosing the intelligent design are only looking for certitude not knowledge. They are not trying to better understand the world around us, they are trying to paint the world around them to their understandings.

If you want to choose the intelligent design, I promise you that you won't be disappointed. Not a single time. Nobody is able to produce a refutation of the intelligent design. The intelligent design is simply a new form of creationism, hiding behind scientific uncertainties. Since we will never reach an absolute understanding and certainty about our world, you are safe with the intelligent design.

The intelligent design, AGW denial, the sphinx being much older than what is credible... this is simply the result of your certitudes about our society. This is a reflection of your thrust in our society. The certitude that scientists are working only to deceive people and to grab money.

[Daruwind]

This is laughable! The Nature article took a year to be retracted and it was only done when an AGW opponent went public about the maths error. I made my retraction in a day. This is typical for you guys. A whole team of AGW "scientists" make a major maths blunder, wait a year to correct it, and then only after they are forced to. To make matters worse they lied again about the retraction. They said they had to do it because of an "under estimation" when in fact it was an over estimation. And, of course, all this is not problematic to you.

And as for the videos, let me ask you: How do you teach? Do you just issue a reading assignment or do you take the time to give lectures? Perhaps you just post a wall of links on the board and say "There you are. My job is done". The videos are simply doing what a teacher would do in a classroom. I guess that's problematic for you. I have to wonder if any of your students will go on to achieve anything, especially when you are teaching them baseless science as fact and continually demonstrating that it's OK to make the data conform to the result you are trying to achieve. Hmmm, come to think of it, that's exactly what a lot of Physicists do.

As for posting a wall of "links", what's the matter, are you afraid to discuss on a point by point basis? It's obvious the reason why you guys do this. You can muddy the water and misdirect, changes the goal posts, etc.

You've seen what happens when the discussion is narrowed down to a single item such as Darwin's Origin of Species. It was shattered. It simply is not workable and yet "G" tried to deflect by mentioning Natural Selection, as if that is the same thing. It clearly is not, but I would bet that you tell your students that Origin of Species is proven science.

What we see time and time again by AGW folks like yourself is manipulation of data, false stories affecting the reputation of publications like Nature (remember a year to retract a story), conspiracy to cover up data manipulation (the e-mail scandal), deflection when you get in a jam, etc.

Tell me, do you tell your students it's OK to manipulate data?

What your comment exhibits is just another version of the AGW craw fish dance.

At first I wanted to post details about my uni, my courses, how we work. But then I realized it doesn´t matter. You will cherry pick single word or sentence and won´t discuss in good faith. You know what? Come study to us, we have even courses for elder people and various courses for public. That being said, once you demonstrate knowledge bare enough for master degree in nuclear and particle science, then we can talk. What? You are afraid you won´t understand and won´t be able to read a few books? Our students are working in CERN, DESY, FERMILAB and courses are quite modern with state or art technologies and hardware working on cutting edge problems.

Single point which I actually want to discuss. Manipulated data, we have whole courses about statistics and various aspects like human factor. Actually yes! I manipulate data for my students and try to teach them how to discover such errors, prevent them or limit the damage. Data itself is wortless, you have always to interpret data and work with them. And sometimes you get pretty hilarious stuff.
https://home.cern/news/press-release...ern-gran-sasso

But you have to understand where is actually a problem..
https://indico.cern.ch/event/591374/...PWA-Barlow.pdf

Anyway. What I want to discuss.
https://indico.cern.ch/event/825688/...daq_at_lhc.pdf

Page 15+ I bet you will call our work with data manipulation and it is. We have to in advance set our triggers so we can try to find certain stuff. Because we have no capicity to store all data fast enough. Are we missing some strange new physics, which looks like something ordinary? Maybe, who knows. We have to work in best faith and count in all possible errors. I´m quite curious what you will say about our precise physics. Come on,have some great commentary. Show us that you understand even quantum chronodynamics, quantm fields and particle models.

And I bet you won´t be able to understand my point. Don´t worry, just having fun. (basically ignoring whatever you are saying...99% of it, making points in my field of work and LOLing around aaaand changing goal and topic on the fly)