700 scientists dissent from global warming and 700 scientists dissent from Darwinism

The fact-free, less-morally-demanding religion of anthropogenic global warming is running into evidential problems. When I wrote about global warming before, I noted that the real goal of the AGW-crowd is to seize control of the free market and implement socialism. Well, we’re getting socialism from the erudite Teleprompter-Reader, but that doesn’t mean we’ll lose the debate.

Scientific Dissent from Global Warming:

MYTH: The latest scientific studies predict more warming (H/T Independent Women’s Forum)

“…You go from a cooling regime to a warming regime or a warming regime to a cooling regime. …we were able to explain all the fluctuations in the global temperature trend in the past century,” Tsonis said. “The research team has found the warming trend of the past 30 years has stopped and in fact global temperatures have leveled off since 2001.”

“…if we don’t understand what is natural, I don’t think we can say much about what the humans are doing. …we were very excited when we realized a lot of changes in the past century from warmer to cooler and then back to warmer were all natural,” Tsonis said.

Tsonis said he thinks the current trend of steady or even cooling earth temps may last a couple of decades or until the next climate shift occurs.

MYTH: All the scientists agree that the recent warming period was man-made (H/T Club for Growth)

Fifty nine additional scientists from around the world have been added to the U.S. Senate Minority Report of dissenting scientists, pushing the total to over 700 skeptical international scientists… This updated report… includes yet another former UN IPCC scientist…

The over 700 dissenting scientists are now more than13 times the number of UN scientists(52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007Summary for Policymakers. The 59 additional scientists hail from all over the world, including Japan, Italy, UK, Czech Republic, the U.S. and many are affiliated with prestigious institutions including, NASA, U.S. Navy, U.S. Defense Department, Energy Department, U.S. Air Force, the Philosophical Society of Washington (the oldest scientific society in Washington), Princeton University, Tulane University, American University, Oregon State University, U.S. Naval Academy and EPA.

MYTH: Green jobs will boost the economy (H/T Independent Women’s Forum)

[Myth #2 of 7]: These green jobs studies mistake any position receiving a paycheck for a position creating value.  Simply hiring people to write and enforce regulations, fill-out forms, and process paperwork is not a recipe for creating wealth. Much of the promised boost in green employment turns out to be in non-productive – and expensive – positions that raise costs for consumers. These higher paying jobs that fail to create a more eco-friendly society dramatically skew the results in both number of green jobs created and salary levels of those jobs.

[Myth #4 of 7]: Green jobs estimates promise greatly expanded (and pleasant and well-paid) employment. This promise is false. The green jobs model is built on promoting inefficient use of labor. The studies favor technologies that employ large numbers of people rather than those technologies that use labor efficiently. In a competitive market, the factors of production, including labor, are paid for their productivity. By focusing on low productivity jobs, the green jobs literature dooms employees to low wages in a shrinking economy. The studies also generally ignore the millions of jobs that will be destroyed by the restrictions imposed by governments on disfavored products and technologies.

Andrew Chamberlain of the Tax Foundation calculates that the cost of the myth of global warming alarmism, which resulted in Obama’s cap-and-trade legislation, would be 144.8 Billion dollars, with an average annual household burden would be $1,218, which would be approximately 2% of the average household income.

John Lott has a post where he links to a UK Telegraph article on media bias that covered two scientific conferences, one pro-AGW and one against AGW, in two completely different ways. The headline is “Nobody listens to the real climate change experts “. Indeed.

Scientific Dissent from Darwinism:

MYTH: There are no reputable scientists who dispute Darwinian evolution

There are over 700 reputable scientists who dissent from Darwinism!(it was 700 as of February 8, 2007, the list has grown even bigger today)

Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture today [February 8, 2007] announced that over 700 scientists from around the world have now signed a statement expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of Darwinian evolution. The statement, located online at www.dissentfromdarwin.org, reads: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

…”We know intuitively that Darwinism can accomplish some things, but not others,” added Egnor. “The question is what is that boundary? Does the information content in living things exceed that boundary? Darwinists have never faced those questions. They’ve never asked scientifically if random mutation and natural selection can generate the information content in living things.”

The list of signatories includes member scientists from National Academies of Science in Russia, Czech Republic, Hungary, India (Hindustan), Nigeria, Poland, and the United States. Many of the signers are professors or researchers at major universities and international research institutions such as Cambridge University, Moscow State University, Chitose Institute of Science & Technology in Japan, Ben-Gurion University in Israel, MIT, The Smithsonian and Princeton.

Really, these two myths are two sides of the same coin. Global warming and Darwinism are examples of politics masquerading as science. We’ve seen this before in the myths of global cooling in the 1970s, the steady-state model of the universe and nuclear winter.

3 thoughts on “700 scientists dissent from global warming and 700 scientists dissent from Darwinism”

  1. I’ve been hacking away at the anthropocentric, catastrophic global warming (ACGW) ‘thing’ for years now (having had some academic background in it) and it’s become clear to me that no matter how much evidence piles up against it, there is a large cadre who will not change their minds because, for them, it has taken the place of faith in God. I have literally lost friends over it once they found out I was a ‘non-believer’. (One person actually used that term.)

    One argument that usually gets ignored (or inverted) comes from the moral dimension. On both a micro (local, day-to-day) and macro (regional, century-to-century) scale, it’s been shown, over and over, that colder climates lead to more deaths.

    So, supposing it all WERE true — that the planet is warming, that it’s our fault and that we can do something about it (it’s not, but suppose it were)… Would they still want to ‘fix’ things knowing it would kill people? Given the culture-of-death worldview to which many/most ACGW believers subscribe, I have to conclude that the answer is yes.

    Which brings one back around to the original question: in what sense is ACGW a ‘problem’ even in theory?

    As for the Darwin thing, the theory is not monolithic. Natural selection as a process has been shown to work in some contexts. What has NOT been shown (and never can be in any definitive sense) is that it, 1) is the only process out there, 2) is responsible for all, most or even some species diversification, or 3) has any explanatory power when it comes to human origins.

    Like

  2. Wait, this is America, we already have Creationism and Darwinism. Are you now saying we have to consider a third option? Good luck. Whatever these obvious fringe scientists propose it must be about as credible the lines of libertarians and RC cola. Americans have shown time and time again that they do not have the mental capacity to consider more than two options on anything:
    Republicans/Democrats. Coke/Pepsi. Creationism/Darwinism. Wal-Mart/Target. Why do scientists always have to rock the boat with their smarty pants third and fourth options?

    Fact is anyone with a head not filled with styrofoam can see that the are many shortcomings to Darwinism, as well as many contradictions in the world around us. But this is no surprise. The same is true of many things that have become “fact” because it is of political convenience to be as such.

    40 years ago when Darwinism held a little more weight, Communists loved it for the doubt it cast upon the beliefs of many religions. A primary objective of Communism after all, is to eradicate religious belief. Though Communism never fully took, support of its principles persisted and as such so did the “Evolution” argument. Couple this with our aforementioned inablility to consider 3rd options, and you can see how Evolution is the equivalent of a religion to those without real religion.

    In that context it is not hard to see through the Global Warming rhetoric. There is great financial and political capital in the idea that we are destroying the earth because we are greedy consumptive bastards. And on this one our 2 choices are even crummier: we’re going to destroy the earth in 50 years, or in 100. The third theory, the We Have Nothing To Do With it Theory, like so many Evolution alternatives, never even makes the mainstream.

    Funny thing is, though Evolution and AGW are typically embraced by the same crowd, they contradict each other, another scientific fact that we can’t be bothered with. How did evolution occur in a world of unchanging weather? How did plants evolve to breathe CO2 at 180ppm? There go the smarty pants scientific questions again.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s