Heartland Institute Building Anti-Science Curriculum

[Herm]

http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/2012/02/23/how-to-kill-the-global-warming-cause/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

a neutral article on the scandal

 

[abasile]

just when I thought there was a sensible conservative scientist I read in the preface: "We don't believe that life came from nothing or that humans evolved from apes."

My respect for Katharine was very short lived. Even Vatican scientists accept evolution as a proven fact.

Her not believing that life came from nothing should not reduce our respect for Katharine. Abiogenesis is not easy, and we still have many unanswered questions about the origins of the very first life.

As for humans evolving from apes, it does appear that Katharine accepts that the earth is over 4 billion years old, so I suspect she would agree that more primitive hominids existed prior to modern humans. While I don't know Katharine's views in any depth, I will say in general that many Christians accept the scientific evidence for the existence of evolutionary processes, but do not regard those processes as the sole explanation for our existence. In other words, many Christians believe that God divinely intervened at key points in evolutionary history, most notably in the advent of modern humans. Others believe that such intervention was unnecessary, as the initial conditions and physical laws were fine tuned to produce the desired outcomes. While I personally do not have all of the answers, I strongly believe that we are not here by accident.

In any case, Katharine is not an evolutionary biologist; she is a climate scientist. I don't see any reason to believe that her views on evolution, whether you like them or not, would compromise her primary work.

 

[BRBarian]

In any case, Katharine is not an evolutionary biologist; she is a climate scientist. I don't see any reason to believe that her views on evolution, whether you like them or not, would compromise her primary work.

Well, that all depends. Several branches of climate research look at the geological record for evidence. If you believe in a young earth, then you also believe that the evidence was planted by God. That dinosaurs didn't really exist, but God made it look that way to test us. The scientific method goes into the dumpster...

If she truly believes in a "World of Warcraft" type of universe (the buildings aren't really old, they just look old), then she's not a real climate scientist. Too much of that field relies on natural history.

Oh.. And she should also know that our climate was caused by evolution. Where does she think our atmospheric oxygen came from??

 

[abasile]

In any case, Katharine is not an evolutionary biologist; she is a climate scientist. I don't see any reason to believe that her views on evolution, whether you like them or not, would compromise her primary work.

Well, that all depends. Several branches of climate research look at the geological record for evidence. If you believe in a young earth, then you also believe that the evidence was planted by God. That dinosaurs didn't really exist, but God made it look that way to test us. The scientific method goes into the dumpster...

If she truly believes in a "World of Warcraft" type of universe (the buildings aren't really old, they just look old), then she's not a real climate scientist. Too much of that field relies on natural history.

Agreed.

My belief is that God put us in this Universe at the optimal time and place for us to make observations and learn. For instance, we have the right viewing conditions at the right time to see most of the way back in time to the creation event, aka. Big Bang.

Closer to home, we have the ability to gather climate-related data stretching back many thousands of years, pretty key in climate science.

I regret that so many Christians are hung up on Young Earth views. In my view, they are missing out on much of the awe and wonder of Creation.

 

[Fabio]

I respectfully disagree with you. When a scientist has his or her faith come before the scientific facts, or tries to shape the facts to fit with his or her own personal beliefs, they are no better than our ancestors who explained what they didn't know with "God".

In any case, Katharine is not an evolutionary biologist; she is a climate scientist. I don't see any reason to believe that her views on evolution, whether you like them or not, would compromise her primary work.

 

[Fabio]

Medieval Italian poet Dante Alighieri would agree with you: "Fatti non foste per viver come bruti, ma per seguir virtute e conoscenza" (you were not made to live your lives as brutes, but to be followers of virtue and knowledge)

My belief is that God put us in this Universe at the optimal time and place for us to make observations and learn.

 

[AndyH]

In any case, Katharine is not an evolutionary biologist; she is a climate scientist. I don't see any reason to believe that her views on evolution, whether you like them or not, would compromise her primary work.

Well, that all depends. Several branches of climate research look at the geological record for evidence. If you believe in a young earth, then you also believe that the evidence was planted by God. That dinosaurs didn't really exist, but God made it look that way to test us. The scientific method goes into the dumpster...

If she truly believes in a "World of Warcraft" type of universe (the buildings aren't really old, they just look old), then she's not a real climate scientist. Too much of that field relies on natural history.

Oh.. And she should also know that our climate was caused by evolution. Where does she think our atmospheric oxygen came from??

Was that not covered by suggesting that the Dr. believes the earth is older than 4 billion years?

 

[Herm]

I'm just glad you guys are picking on abasile instead of me..

 

[Stoaty]

The Skeptics deserve to make a living too, after all they are fighting the Warmist's scam and risking their careers. Luckily the tide appears to be turning.

I assumed at first that this was sarcasm, because I couldn't believe that this kind of anti-science nonsense would show up here. Obviously I was wrong.

 

[thankyouOB]

The Skeptics deserve to make a living too, after all they are fighting the Warmist's scam and risking their careers. Luckily the tide appears to be turning.

I assumed at first that this was sarcasm, because I couldn't believe that this kind of anti-science nonsense would show up here. Obviously I was wrong.

nope. we have a few right-wingers who refuse to believe that driving a Leaf makes them environmentally correct, and they also keep denying that they are actually driving like the enemy.

 

[BRBarian]

Was that not covered by suggesting that the Dr. believes the earth is older than 4 billion years?

It's not clear exactly what she believes. I've listened to two of her shows, and it really isn't clear...

Where she is completely correct is that the non-religious have been pushing a denier's agenda onto the Christian community... to make it part of Christian dogma. She's pulling hard against that.

 

[Fabio]

nope. we have a few right-wingers who refuse to believe that driving a Leaf makes them environmentally correct, and they also keep denying that they are actually driving like the enemy.

Frankly, I prefer a right-winger on a LEAF, rather than one on a H2 -- even if the choice is only motivated
by national security or by economic concerns.

 

[Fabio]

first the immaculate conception, now the non warming earth :lol: :lol: :lol:

Where she is completely correct is that the non-religious have been pushing a denier's agenda onto the Christian community... to make it part of Christian dogma. She's pulling hard against that.

 

[klapauzius]

Just out of curiosity: Did anyone ever manage to convince a climate/science sceptic
with arguments?

To the sceptics:
What would it take to convince you that global warming is a real, man made
phenomenon AND that it will be bad for everyone?
In other words, what facts are still missing to reject your hypothesis?
Do you think there is a test or experiment, that could settle the matter?

 

[BRBarian]

Just out of curiosity: Did anyone ever manage to convince a climate/science sceptic
with arguments?

"Or this variation on Sinclair: It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ideological worldview depends on it not being true." -- Paul Krugman, 2008

 

[Fabio]

Ira Flatow asked this very question to a denier who called in a show on the conservative "war on science".
The answer was to change topic and bring up another ditto-head talking point.

Just out of curiosity: Did anyone ever manage to convince a climate/science sceptic
with arguments?

To the sceptics:
What would it take to convince you that global warming is a real, man made
phenomenon AND that it will be bad for everyone?
In other words, what facts are still missing to reject your hypothesis?
Do you think there is a test or experiment, that could settle the matter?

 

[klapauzius]

for starters i would be curious what the resident conservatives\climate sceptics
on this forum would say?

 

[Fabio]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8E_zMLCRNg&feature=endscreen&NR=1

for starters i would be curious what the resident conservatives\climate sceptics
on this forum would say?

 

[klapauzius]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8E_zMLCRNg&feature=endscreen&NR=1

for starters i would be curious what the resident conservatives\climate sceptics
on this forum would say?

Crickets!
Should we even have a serious discussion with something that has about 10 000 000 less neurons than us?

 

[evnow]

http://news.yahoo.com/incompetent-people-too-ignorant-know-175402902.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If only we knew ourselves better. Dunning believes people's inability to assess their own knowledge is the cause of many of society's ills, including climate change denialism. "Many people don't have training in science, and so they may very well misunderstand the science. But because they don't have the knowledge to evaluate it, they don't realize how off their evaluations might be," he said.

Moreover, even if a person has come to a very logical conclusion about whether climate change is real or not based on their evaluation of the science, "they're really not in a position to evaluate the science."

Let me repeat - the only science things the wingers challenge are
- AGW
- Evolution

Clealry this has nothing to do with science - and everything to do with ideology.