Tag Archives: Science

News

877 snowfall records were set last week in the USA

6 Comments

The post is here on Michael’s Comments. (H/T ECM)

The map:

Excerpt:

The [AGW] hypothesis has been falsified by:

(1) the missing thermal signature of CO2 in the tropical atmosphere which the IPCC model requires.

[…](2) new and better data from Antarctic and Greenland ice cores showing that CO2 does not cause warming, but is a feedback effect.

[…](3) the recent demonstration by German physicists, published in International Journal of Modern Physics, that the IPCC model violates the First and Second Laws of Thermodymics (i.e., their predictions are impossible) and that the atmosphere does not faintly resemble a greenhouse.

[…](4) both surface station data and new satellite data (which is not subject to distortion from the “urban island effect” or rigging by undisclosed computer models used by AGW alarmists) indicate that the warming trend had stopped by 2002 while CO2 continued to increase substantially — which the IPCC model does not permit.

[…](5) recent publication, in a prestigious peer reviewed journal, of evidence that the actual cause of modern global warming is CFCs interacting with cosmic radiation.  Unfortunately for the politicians, bureaucrats and grant pimps, CFCs are a problem that has already been fixed, and the ozone holes over the poles are repairing themselves.

How can the AGW alarmists maintain their religion in the face of such science?

This is a great post. Read the whole thing! And send it to your friends! (Also, “Al Gore” is apparently leaving angry comments in the post, so read those too!).

Commentary

Does Darwinism explain anything?

2 Comments

Dr. Cornelius Hunter answers the question here. (H/T ECM)

Here’s the criterion specified by naturalists to make an explanation scientific:

…in order to qualify as legitimate science a theory must distinguish between different outcomes. Naturalism is needed because otherwise each outcome is equally probable and the theory is not true science.

Deciding what does and does not qualify as legitimate science is notoriously difficult. There seem to be exceptions to every rule. But perhaps Felsenstein’s criterion is reasonable. Shouldn’t a scientific theory say at least something about the probabilities of what we might observe in the data?

Does Darwinism satisfy the criterion? Hunter argues that it does not.

Whatever we find in biology, evolutionists say it must have evolved. Their predictions and expectations are often falsified and they have to patch their theory repeatedly. And there is no distinction between a new, fantastic design and a repeated design–both are equiprobable under evolution.

If a new, fantastic design appears such as the trilobite eye, then evolutionists ascribe it to natural selection. If similar designs are found in different species, then it is ascribed to common descent. If later cousin species are found to lack the design, then common descent can be dropped as an explanation and the design can be said to have evolved independently. The evolutionary explanation is extremely flexible.

If distinguishing between outcomes is the hallmark of true science, then evolution is the theory that doesn’t qualify.

Read the whole thing!

Related posts

Commentary

Climategate e-mails recall tactics used by Darwinists to stifle dissent

4 Comments

Dr. Stephen C. Meyer, writing in Human Events.

Excerpt:

There have been parallels cases where e-mail traffic was released showing Darwinian scientists displaying the same contempt for fair play and academic openness as we see now in the climate emails. One instance involved a distinguished astrophysicist at Iowa State University, Guillermo Gonzalez, who broke ranks with colleagues in his department over the issue of intelligent design in cosmology. Released under the Iowa Open Records Act, e-mails from his fellow scientists at ISU showed how his department conspired against him, denying Dr. Gonzales tenure as retribution for his views.

To me, the most poignant correspondence emerging from CRU e-mails involves discussion about punishing a particular editor at a peer-reviewed journal who was defying the orthodox establishment by publishing skeptical research.

In 2004, a peer-reviewed biology journal at the Smithsonian Institution published a technical essay of mine presenting a case for intelligent design. Colleagues of the journal’s editor, an evolutionary biologist, responded by taking away his office, his keys and his access to specimens, placing him under a hostile supervisor and spreading disinformation about him. Ultimately, he was demoted, prompting an investigation of the Smithsonian by the U.S. Office of Special Counsel.

Global warming alarmism and Darwinism are two sides of the same coin. The former is embraced to achieve socialism, the later is embraced to achieve secularism, which leads to moral relativism. Neither is true, so neither is interested in authentic scientific inquiry nor open-minded debates with dissenters. Non-theists don’t have a worldview that rationally justifies the moral requirements of scientific inquiry, so for them science is just something to be twisted to support hedonism.