Global Warming - yes, no, maybe?

[BrentAllen]

I thought science and religion were two different topics, not to be mixed.

 

I'm not sure that is Sarah Palin's personal religious beliefs. Source, please.

[GernBlansten]

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/sep/28/nation/na-palinreligion28

"Soon after Sarah Palin was elected mayor of the foothill town of Wasilla, Alaska, she startled a local music teacher by insisting in casual conversation that men and dinosaurs coexisted on an Earth created 6,000 years ago -- about 65 million years after scientists say most dinosaurs became extinct -- the teacher said."

 

[DanKroh]

GHB, thank you for both clarifying your earlier statements and for your sympathy.

 

vol_scouter, I've also sat through several lectures on the inconsistencies of the data from the accident itself (i.e. radiation levels) and the lack of good, long-term studies of the population (as opposed to the workers) for both cancers and birth defects.

 

"The consistent conclusions are that there is a statistically non-significant incidence in lymphomas but otherwise the age matched cohorts are healthier than the general population."

 

Yes, well, having now lost 4 immediate family members to cancer (3 of which were lymphomas, including my brother, who was working at TMI at that time) who were within 15 miles during and after the accident, it is that statistical variance that concerns me. And again, what about birth defects? The number of defects among the children of my high school graduating class, for example, seems inordinately high.

 

But I do agree with you that coal is not the answer. In addition to the pollution issue, large regions of PA around my childhood home have been devastated by coal strip mining.

 

Honestly, I think if you want to get good research on energy alternatives, we need to get control of energy R&D money out of the hands of Big Oil.

[BrentAllen]

"Palin told him that "dinosaurs and humans walked the Earth at the same time," Munger said. When he asked her about prehistoric fossils and tracks dating back millions of years, Palin said "she had seen pictures of human footprints inside the tracks," recalled Munger, who teaches music at the University of Alaska in Anchorage and has regularly criticized Palin in recent years on his liberal political blog, called Progressive Alaska."

 

That's the best you can do - dig up a quote from one of her detractors?? I'm sure he didn't have an axe to grind, with that political blog - Progressive Alaska.

 

BTW, what does her religious views have to do with science? Keep religion out of the science classroom, and vice-versa, right?

[vol_scouter]

Dan,

 

I am truly sorry about the losses in your family. I will try to dig up some of the RERF data about birth defects. I know that the incidence in the RERF database was lower than anticipated for first and second generations (there was some thought that the defects would 'skip' a generation but that did not prove to be true). Since you think that most of the energy R&D money is from big oil, you are going to the wrong talks. That is why you have been mislead about the risks of radiation. Most energy R&D (unless including oil money looking for new oil fields) is from the federal government. The radiation studies are from the federal government. The public has been terrorized about the risks of radiation. Linear no threshold has not been shown and there is considerable evidence that hormesis has some credence. See for example: Deinococcus radiodurans which is resistant to large radiation doses. Nuclear power is the only reasonable way to decrease dependence on foreign oil, the modern designs are safe, and the waste problems have been solved if only the politicians will allow the field to move forward.

[GernBlansten]

"That's the best you can do - dig up a quote from one of her detractors?? I'm sure he didn't have an axe to grind, with that political blog - Progressive Alaska.

 

BTW, what does her religious views have to do with science? Keep religion out of the science classroom, and vice-versa, right? "

 

Well Brent, your more than welcome to dig up something something to dispel those rumors of her views. Doubt you will. Just sayin'.

 

BTW, I do think religious views cloud people's ability to objectively view science. Especially when its contrary to their politics or beliefs. Don't you?

[packsaddle]

Vol, what effect do you think there would be on the viability of nuclear power if the Price-Anderson Act was abolished and the industry had to assume all of the potential liability? Same as other forms of energy production. Do the math as well. How many nukes would it take to replace fossil fuels?

For that matter without reprocessing spent fuel, how long do you think the nuclear fuel would hold out? Are you advocating restarting the fast breeders?

Also, same comment as I made to John-in-KC: show me the electric tractors, electric fertilizer, and electric pesticides. Convince me. I'm open to evidence.

 

I'd like to thank Brent for those passages from Ehrlich et al.

I use some of the better ones in my spectacular-failures-to-predict lectures. My opening slide is one of those Popular Science covers from back in the 1950s in which we're all flying around and levitating through cities of the future, LOL. It's one of the reasons I refrain from similar speculations. Ehrlich was shameless. Fervent for sure, but shameless. Good for laughs.

I feel much the same about the Book of Revelation.

 

Brent, I'm not clear what you're saying about the age of the earth. Are you saying that the age of the earth is NOT a matter of interest for both science and religion? It seems clear that some people reject the scientific view on purely religious grounds.

 

"my point was that in biology today, and to some degree in physics, opportunities are governed, NOT by scientific rigor or skill, but by groveling submission to the current PC notions."

GHB, is this your opinion or do you have actual evidence? Perhaps you could be more specific. If you do have evidence, please share. What you just described does not occur in any department with which I've had interactions.

 

le Voyageur, granted that chemical contaminants and similar things are widespread but I think you are overstating the effects. Fact is, this is the Faustian bargain that we've made. We have a technological needle in our vein and we wouldn't remove it even if we could. Moreover there are far greater things to worry about. Combining the recent prediction by the IEA that conventional oil will peak in 2020 with the kinds of predictions in the document called "Eating Fossil Fuel" - now that is something to cause fear, for those who get off on fear.

One thing is for sure, though. In this and most other developed countries, we've been spared the kinds of selective pressures that could have acted on us, thanks to technology. If selective pressures ever do start to act in a significant way, it's going to be really interesting.

"For some little bug is going to get you someday.

Some little bug will creep behind you some day.

Then he'll send for his bug friends

And all your troubles they will end,

For some little bug is gonna find you someday."

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

BrentAllen writes:

...BTW, what does her religious views have to do with science? Keep religion out of the science classroom, and vice-versa, right?

 

Stating that "dinosaurs and humans walked the Earth at the same time" is a religious view?

 

Is stating that "dinosaurs preceded humans by millions of years" also a religious view?

 

If not, why is one statement religious and the other statement not religious?

 

"Prayer has no place in the public schools, just like facts have no place in organized religion." -- Superintendent Chalmers

[Beavah]

Yah, Ehrlich was quite da comic, eh?

 

But takin' out of context quotes from one weak thinker and tryin' to condemn all science is like takin' out of context quotes from one corrupt televangelist and tryin' to condemn all religion. Just ain't reasonable.

 

FScouter's right, the warnings of the past have caused us to work harder. Warnings of famine caused us to develop advanced fertilizers, usin' oil to make more food. Very creative, that.

 

Warnings of resource shortages caused smart folks in da market to do what markets do - go exploring for new sources, or opening up sources previously unavailable. Da increased political stability in many places resultin' from the end of the Cold War have helped. So have leapfrogging technologies like cell phones and fiberoptics, which greatly reduced the need for copper throughout da developing world.

 

Oil and Coal kill lots of people through disease, orders of magnitude more than nuclear. Can't see where yeh can be a sound scientist and not agree that for the moment, nuclear is a necessary component of our energy future which needs to be expanded if we're combattin' global warming. Solar and wind will take some of the load, but only some. Everything else spews carbon and kills people with pollution.

 

Responsible environmentalists can't be the "party of No", sayin' "no" to every energy. Conservation and efficiency improvements have their place, but we're still goin' to be using energy.

 

Beavah

 

[packsaddle]

Heck, the deaths in coal mine disasters alone exceed the health impacts of nuclear power, not to mention acid rain, mine drainage, etc. You don't even have to invoke climate change.

(I remind everyone that acid rain was viewed by the Reagan administration as just a myth, a political ploy by the Northeast to recapture jobs lost to the midwest, but I digress...Reagan also viewed AIDS as a gay problem, no need to do anything about THAT)

 

"...Can't see where yeh can be a sound scientist and not agree that for the moment, nuclear is a necessary component of our energy future..."

I can agree with this in a qualified manner. Nuclear IS here and it's going to stay. It is hugely profitable and it doesn't emit greenhouse gases other than those involved in producing the concrete and other materials, and the energy to build the plants in the first place. I remind everyone that the Savannah River Plant reactors where we generated the material to build the bombs that we had to have in case we needed to kill hundreds of millions of people in other countries....this vast nuclear complex got its operating electricity from an on-site coal-fired power plant. I think the nuclear industry should compete with other technologies on a level playing field (marketplace).

My beef with the policy people is the games that are being played with regard to costs and benefits. Nuclear power receives a gargantuan subsidy. Other subsidies are offered to solar, etc. These subsidies effectively manipulate their ability to compete in the marketplace. This is very risky decision-making behavior because it risks promotion of technologies that do not provide the most benefit versus real cost (in energy terms). The profits that are shifted by these political decisions could be invested in real advances, identified in a free market.

We already play games with the market to make huge profits from energy that is consumed for no purpose other than to shift energy demand, and in the process consume even more energy. In energy terms this is obscene. But it is good business in terms of dollars. I question whether this kind of thing is the best basis for policy decisions.

 

If we were merely redistributing current wealth to play these political games (subsidies), that would be bad enough. But we're redistributing wealth that doesn't exist yet, from future generations, in order to promote lobbyist interests with very little attention to actual energetic costs and benefits. These decisions are being made in terms of dollars and not units of energy, and seemingly with little care about future generations.

I am just a scientist. But my simplistic view of these things makes me recoil strongly at what seems to be a system of systematic lies.

There ARE actual answers. Few if anyone in our national leadership seems to care enough to seek them, or heed them. Neither party.

[HiLo]

Those arguing that nuclear is safe now are using a bit of tunnel vision. Yes, scientists may have developed safe ways of managing the waste and building the plants, but the plants are built by profit seeking business people and regulated by politicians. Sorry. I don't trust enough of them, especially over the time frames involved.

[BrentAllen]

Gern,

I take the word of her religious leaders over those of her detractors. Those are easy to find, and you won't read anything about dinosaurs. But, as usual, I'm sure you aren't interested in the truth.

BTW, has Sarah Palin visited this page? Where are you having scientific discussions with her?

 

pack,

I'm not saying anything about the age of the earth. I'm saying keep science and religion separate. We aren't allowed to discuss creationism or intelligent design in the classroom. So, don't bring big bang or other theories into the church and tell us our religion is wrong.

 

Yes, Ehrlich was/is the Village Idiot. Unfortunately, with John Holdren, you have an Ehrlich proxy AS OBAMA'S SCIENCE CZAR. How stupid is that??

 

Sorry, Beavah, ridiculous predictions are just that - ridiculous. Al Gore's predictions are just that - ridiculous. AGW is the greatest hoax of our lifetime. The only people to benefit from cap & trade will be Gore and his buddies. Thankfully, this hoax sweater is starting to unravel before our very eyes. Gore is on his way to being just another Ehrlich.

[GaHillBilly]

"my point was that in biology today, and to some degree in physics, opportunities are governed, NOT by scientific rigor or skill, but by groveling submission to the current PC notions."

 

packsaddle asked:

"GHB, is this your opinion or do you have actual evidence? Perhaps you could be more specific. If you do have evidence, please share. What you just described does not occur in any department with which I've had interactions."

 

It's an opinion but not just mine. It's backed by a number of observations, again not just mine. But it's OT here. However, what I said here triggered some further discussions with my older son, and some book purchases. I may start a thread on this topic later. However, if you want to track that stuff down now (on the physics side, at least) Google for "Not even false" or "Lee Smolin".

 

 

 

- About Palin and her dinosaurs & people claims: I do know that quite a few people, some of who supply home-school science books, have made similar claims. They don't appear to be very well founded, but the problem is that the folks on the other side dominate the issue AND the physical sites, and do suppress such things. Some years ago, when trying to get biology texts for my oldest son, I ended up with the attitude of 'A pox on ALL their houses' toward both creationists and evolutionists.

 

If there ARE any 'just the facts, ma'am' scientists on that topic, they don't seem to be publishing.

 

Anyhow, to the non-scientists within the evangelical community, some of the dinosaur & human claims (and other similar bits) seem to be as well supported as secular claims like, say, AGW. ;-)

 

 

 

- About religion and science

What many folks, even within the scientific and evangelical communities, don't get is that there are two utterly incompatible views about religion and science. The 'modern' view is that science is here, with hard data, and religion is there, with faith. Although not all evangelicals understand it, that view is TOTALLY incompatible with orthodox Christianity. (The RC Church has also dabbled with a similarly bifurcated view of truth, though I gather it's been drifting back from that.)

 

Orthodox Christianity has always -- if not clearly or distinctly -- asserted that ALL truth is God's truth, whether it's from the Bible, the Magisterium, or science. Incompatibilities between apparent truths from these differing sources are understood to result from errors on man's side of things, whether it's misreading the Bible or mis-measuring the data.

 

Now, it is true that, particularly with in American evangelicalism, there has been a thread of thought that says that the Bible provides sufficient information not only for "life and Godliness" (from the Westminster Confession, circa 1600's), but for science and history. This view has been espoused more by preachers than trained theologians, but has been widespread. However, it appears to me that this is fading, like the RCC bifurcated view of truth. (The orthodox view is that, while the Bible may speak accurately of such things, there is no reason to assume or assert 'sufficiency' or completeness.)

 

Regardless, fully orthodox Christianity has ALWAYS asserted that Christianity is about FACTS. As St. Paul notes, if Christ was not raised (physically from the dead) we of all men are most to be pitied (because we are fools).

 

Incidently, this same view of truth is held by all traditional adherents to religions in the Judeo-Christian stream, such as orthdox Judaism or orthdox Islam or even heresies from orthdox Christianity, like Mormonism. This is why it's such a big deal about whether someone has found Christ's body: if they have, all honest orthodox Christians have to abandon their religion.

 

By contrast, all flavors of modernism -- Christian, Jewish, what-not -- have more in common philosophically and theologically with each other, than they do with their nominal 'parent' orthodoxy. The statement, "I could never believe in God like that", is fundamentally modernistic, and is equivalent to the statement, "I could never believe in a GRAVITY like that". As you can see, the statement ONLY makes sense, if you don't think "God" is a 'fact' outside your control or opinion.

 

This is why I've said things like, modernistic religions are more about what you like or what makes you feel good, than they are about what's true. Thus, modernistic religions are fundamentally about what's going on inside YOUR head. Oppositely, orthodox religions are an attempt to deal with whatever God or god or gods who is / are out there.

 

This is also why external 'facts' don't matter to modernists, but are battle-line issues to the orthodox.

 

 

GaHillBilly

[packsaddle]

HiLo, even my contacts in the nuclear industry admit (in careful whispers) that government regulation with regard to safety has probably been a good thing for both the public and the industry. Think about it, at Browns Ferry, all of the redundant safety system cables were run through the same conduit and some technician that industry selected to do the job, employing an industry-selected method (checking for leaks with a candle), set them on fire. That's the unregulated approach to minimizing costs. The regulations that resulted are a burden to some extent but because of tighter regulation you are less likely to encounter those kinds of bonehead actions in the future. I'd say that's a good thing.

 

The issue of what to do with the spent fuel remains unresolved. I have to note that there is a difference between spent fuel and nuclear waste. Nuclear waste is material for which there is no further use and must be disposed of. Spent fuel is potentially quite a valuable resource. The small mountain of it that has been accumulating at nuclear power plants could, under different circumstances, become a 'gold mine' for the industry as well as a lifeline for the future. Stay tuned.

 

Brent, creationism or intelligent design should stay out of SCIENCE classrooms...because they are not scientific ideas. But if people in comparative religion classrooms or perhaps social studies classrooms want to discuss these things, no problem.

Are you saying that scientists are entering churches to mount attacks on your faith? That seems to be what you're claiming, and if so, I'm unaware of it. Perhaps some examples?

 

Al Gore is not an authority on science. Period. This is one reason that I and others have argued with some success NOT to use his video in K-12 classrooms, even though it has been offered for free.

There ARE objective ideas and evidence associated with issues affected by science. Those ideas and evidence are the things that students need to understand first, before they begin to try to unravel the tangled web of politics.

[packsaddle]

What the heck...according to snopes and other sources, the Sarah Palin 'quote' was a fabrication, perhaps for the purpose of satire. Are there really many people today who actually believe that dinosaurs and people existed at the same time?