The Condensed Skeptics Argument Against CAGW

Below is the condensed version of the arguments that skeptics make in regard to catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.

Most climate change skeptics actually agree that the earth has warmed the last 50 years and that humans are probably responsible for at least a portion of that warming. Those are not the issues that divides "alarmists" and "deniers".

The main issues that divide the two camps are as follows:

1. Many of the negative effects of a warmer planet are unproven. For instance, there is ZERO observational evidence that there have been more hurricanes, stronger storms, more frequent tornadoes, decreased crop yields or increased droughts as a result of the warming the last 50 years. Contrary to popular belief our climate isn't getting "weirder", just warmer. Whether or not there will be stronger or more frequent storms in the future as a result of a warmer planet is also unproven since this will depend on where the warming occurs and because climate models have been inaccurate so far in this regard. Attempts to show otherwise are based on cherry picked data from specific regions of the globe or short time periods.

2. Even sea level increases are controversial. For instance, the amount of sea level rise per decade since 1960 is not much higher than the rate that was observed in the 1800s and early 1900s before we began emitting so much CO2. In fact, sea levels have been rising steadily for the last 20,000 years. So there's clearly other factors present, possibly involving tectonics or changes in the sea floor. The human contribution to rising sea levels so far has been minimal.

3. Other extreme predictions such as 40% extinction of species by 2050 or New York City to be partly under water by 2020 and coastal cities to be uninhabitable in the next few decades are also unproven and typically made by scientists who have never had their prior predictions verified before.

4. Climate forecast models made without the benefit of hindcasting have consistently over-predicted the amount of observed warming (by roughly three times) when applied to independent data. Climate models have also incorrectly predicted where the most warming will occur. Even on historical simulations that accurately reproduce past global average temperatures, climate models do not replicate the observed temperature & precipitation at individual stations. Additionally, EVERY decent operational forecast meteorologist knows that raw 2-meter temperature forecasts from a short-term (1-7 day) numerical weather prediction model are garbage. That's why the NWS statistically post-processes the model forecasts and turns them into something useful. However NO such statistical post-processing is applied to climate models. Climate models are also coupled with ocean models, since oceans play an important role in modifying our climate. However, our knowledge of oceanic processes pales in comparison to our knowledge of the atmosphere and is also likely a source of error. As a result of all this, it is highly likely that climate scientists give too much confidence in their model simulations and as a result the genuine uncertainty going forward is actually much greater.

5. Despite the increase in CO2 the last 18 years or so, there has been no corresponding increase in global temperatures. Nobody knows why but there have been over 3 dozen possible reasons provided. Bottom line is there are clearly other natural forcing mechanisms at work which are largely unknown. However, this is a double-edged sword for the pro AGW camp because if there are unknown mechanisms which can prevent warming on a short time scale then it demonstrates that natural mechanisms and variability play a more important role than previously thought and could have also contributed a bigger portion of the warming the last half-century. [Note:  in all fairness this could be the result of cherry picking. Move the start time to 1995 and there is slight warming trend but move the start point to 1999 and it looks like temps level off. Time will tell. If the temps in the next five years begin to uptick then this argument used by skeptics will be invalidated. However if they remain level by 2020 then this argument is still in play and will require an explanation of the pause, since by then the temp will be outside the forecasted envelope of possibilities].

6. Nobody has defined the optimal climate. Why should today's climate be automatically defined as the best one possible? A climate that's several degrees warmer offers possible benefits largely dismissed by the AGW community:  longer growing seasons, more usable farm land, increased vegetation growth, fewer deaths in winter, and people in general prefer warmer climates.

7. There is no way of knowing how the future climate will change as a result of both human and natural influences. All efforts made to curb global warming today could ultimately be a waste of time and money.

On Global Warming ... Interview with a Meteorologist, Part 4

Here's the final instalment of my interview.
 
So where do we go from here? What action items do we take?

I'm not into politics. I do think it's clear we don't want to be dumping this much CO2 into the atmosphere for the next 500 years. However I do think we have more than enough time to research this more closely, pay close attention to the observations, and improve the climate models to where they can make better predictions on independent data. In the mean time we are inching our way where we need to go with more efficient cars, stricter EPA regulations, and trending toward cleaner fuels. The next 10-20 years will be important and should make the issues more clear. If global temperatures start up-ticking again toward the climate model projections then that would be a big red flag saying we need to take more serious immediate action. However before it gets to that point I am hopeful that we'll come up with technological solutions to the problem.

Any other recommendations?

Well just one. When a new study appears on the news regarding a recent climate change study, it's best to treat it like you would a new study from one of the medical journals. You know the kind "people who eat oatmeal for breakfast lower their heart attack rate by 65%, etc." Treat new climate change results the same way. That is, don't discard them in the trash, because they might actually be right, but don't take them so seriously that you rush to the store to clear oatmeal off the shelves. It's not that I want to intentionally downplay everything, but rather it's just my experience dealing with these studies (that are solely derived from output of numerical models) which often fly in the face of what's really predictable and what's not given the current state of the art.

What good has come out of the debate over climate change?

The first thing is awareness of a potential problem. Even though some climate change skeptics (or "deniers") are overly critical of climate change activists (or "alarmists"), if it wasn't for the loud voices on the side of the activists then we run the risk of business as usual for too long before taking remedial actions, and that could be a problem.

The second one is advancement of science. Even though some climate change activists are overly critical of climate change skeptics, the net result is better science because it forces the scientists to go back, re-look at the data and make sure there are no holes in their work. 

What things do you dislike about the climate change debate?

I guess the thing I hate the most is when there's a bad storm and the news media (or even some scientists who should know better) attribute the storm to global warming. There is no evidence despite all the warming the last 100 years that there have been more stronger storms. Even the IPCC admits as such in their reports. Here is the latest study on the subject which looks at global frequency of hurricanes and the total accumulated storm energy:
http://policlimate.com/tropical/frequency_12months.png
http://policlimate.com/tropical/global_running_ace.png

In actuality, whether or not we get stronger storms really will depend on where the warming occurs (if in fact the earth's atmosphere does get warmer). If most of the heat increase is at ground level or in the oceans then that could lead to more intense hurricanes as long as other factors don't change. If most of the heat increase is higher up in the atmosphere than that would stabilize the atmosphere leading to fewer strong storms. Right now I don't think the models are reliable enough to trust what they say in that regard.

I also detest the overt scare tactics, like when someone who should know better says that we only have 4 years (this was back in 2009) before we reach the point of no return and that New York City will be partly under water by 2020. That really gives me heartburn. I also detest the use of labels (e.g., "denier", "warmist").

Is there any aspect of a warming planet that does concern you?

To be honest, I'm more concerned about global terrorism than global warming. That said, I won't be buying any property in Miami Beach because of rising sea levels, LOL. But even in that case the worst that will happen is people would have to re-locate, and it would happen so slowly over time that it's not like people will die all of a sudden. The other effects ... stronger storms, increased droughts, more wild fires, more floods, food shortages, mass extinctions by 2050, 20-foot sea level rises I don't take seriously at this time due to lack of evidence or lack of track record at making such predictions.

Any parting words?

Yeah, don't use the phrases like "greenhouse effect" or "greenhouse gases", they're wrong! Greenhouses stay warm in the daytime for a totally different physical reason (lack of convective mixing) than how the earth would stay warm through increased CO2 (absorption & re-emission of long wave radiation). I'm surprised so many scientists still use these terms.

This concludes the "interview". Thanks for reading!

On Global Warming ... Interview with a Meteorologist, Part 3

Continuing with my interview of myself ...

Sounds like you have an agenda to drive a stake in the hearts of climate activists.

Not at all, I'm just conveying the reality and what the data shows. I have no personal agenda or any skin in the game. Of course I also don't want to imply that we should throw the baby out with the bathwater either. The science of weather & climate modelling has advanced tremendously in the last 30 years since I was in school and we need to keep up the research effort. Moreover, just because there are obvious problems also doesn't mean that humans aren't causing any global warming. In all likelihood, we probably have at least to some extent.

However, the reality is the climate forecast models are just not that good yet, and we really don't know, or at least can't precisely specify, all the feedback mechanisms and interactions involved in the atmosphere/ocean system. There are literally dozens of different climate models in use today, each has their own set of physics, and they are all continually being modified and improved. If there was scientific consensus on the physics of the atmosphere and oceans then there would only be one climate model and it would be fixed forever.

Climate prediction is still very young and it's nowhere near an exact science. So all I'm trying to convey is that there is still significant uncertainty exactly how much humans have contributed toward global warming the past 100 years and how much they will contribute the next 100 years, regardless of what the news media and sketchy surveys suggest.

On top of that it has to be realized that our climate can change either advantageously or destructively all by itself even if humans cease burning fossil fuels tomorrow. There are so many things that can influence our climate that have nothing to do with CO2:  changes in solar activity, earth's tilt, earth's orbit, volcanoes, ocean currents, plate tectonics, albedo, land use, etc. Thus any effort of humans to temper our climate could ultimately be a waste of time and capital.

Lastly, has anyone even defined what is the optimal climate? Why should today's climate happen to be the best and any change from that is bad? I would think that any debate over climate change should begin with a healthy discussion on what our optimal climate should look like.

I don't know, it still sounds like you're a climate change denier in sheep's clothing who's in bed with all the big oil companies.

No I'm definitely not a denier and I'm not receiving any tithes from big oil, but perhaps I can make this all a bit more clear with what I call the "97% Challenge".

The 97% challenge? Are you making fun of the climate change surveys?

Not making fun of the surveys, but after I'm done with the challenge hopefully it'll be easier to see that the science is not settled with a 97% confidence level implied by those surveys.

OK, so what's the challenge?

Quite simple, if climate scientists and activists are so confident regarding global warming then they should have no problem making the following wager. Specifically the climate scientists and proponents would wager 97% of their total net worth (house, car, bank accounts, IRA, social security payments, furniture, everything) and if the earth is warmer in say 10-20 years compared to the last decade then they would win the wager and essentially double their net worth. BUT ... if the earth doesn't get appreciably warmer in that time period then they lose 97% of all their possessions!

Mathematically if the survey results are correct about the 97% confidence, then the bet should be a no-brainer because of the positive financial expectation to make money. Yet, I don't think any person in their right mind would take such a wager and risk their life's savings which is an implicit admission that deep down inside we know there is a significant amount of uncertainty in the field of climate science & prediction, regardless of what the surveys suggest.

To be continued ...

On Global Warming ... Interview with a Meteorologist, Part 2

Here is part 2 of my interview with myself on global warming.

So, then how do climatologists conclude that the increased warming is due to increased levels of carbon dioxide?

Simply stated, climatologists run computer models that simulate the physics of our atmosphere and oceans, initializing the models at some time in the past where the data history is known. Computer simulations are run both with and without increasing the CO2 concentrations from the starting point. Results show that when increasing carbon dioxide amounts over time the temperature output in the models is warmer and also in line with observed readings in the past century. Results also show that the warming did not occur as the result of any known natural source.

So tell me more about these climate models.

Climate models are very similar to the numerical weather prediction (NWP) models that are run every day to make short term (0-7 day) forecasts. They each start with an initial state where conditions are known and use a complicated series of physical equations to determine how the initial conditions will change over time. The main differences are that climate models use a more course resolution (that's so forecasts can be made decades in advance instead of just a few days), and climate models contain additional physical processes that are germain for long-term prediction, especially those for handling ocean circulations, land/sea ice, vegetation, aerosol chemistry, and so forth.

Since the computer models say the warming is due to human activity then the science is settled, right?

It increases the probability, but the model simulations don't prove anything conclusively. Unfortunately the devil is in the details, and there are many problems that need to be addressed. First and foremost, when dealing with direct output from short-term NWP models, every experienced forecast meteorologist knows that those forecasts contain significant biases and errors even on forecasts just a couple of days out. This is especially true of surface weather parameters like temperature and precipitation. NWP models also suffer from "model drift" (or climate drift), which means they get artificially hotter or colder or more wet or more dry over time. As a result of these deficiencies, scientists at the NOAA's meteorological development lab apply statistical corrections to short-term (0-7 day) NWP model forecasts (called MOS for Model Output Statistics). These statistical models correlate the NWP model predictions to actual observed surface weather. The improvements of the statistical post-processing are substantial, and in terms of temperature forecasts the error rates are cut in half. For example, see the 2nd chart in the link below comparing temperature forecast errors directly from NWP models (DMO) vs. statistically post-processed forecasts (MOS):
http://www.atmos.umd.edu/~ekalnay/syllabi/AOSC630/Antolick2013.pdf

Unfortunately, no such statistical post-processing is applied to climate models, and that is a huge problem. If short-range NWP models have significant biases and errors on just a 1-2 day forecast, then I can't imagine that long-term climate models running out 50-100 years in advance wouldn't have even deeper issues. Not only does this mean we're dealing with potentially sub-standard and biased predictions from climate models, but without the statistical post-processing there is no way to estimate the certainty level in the climate predictions. As a result, there is a good chance that some climate scientists may be attaching way too much confidence in the simulation results and predictions that are generated by climate models.

But at the top didn't you say that climate models successfully simulated observed temperatures the last 100 years? Doesn't that mean they are good enough to conclude that humans were responsible for making the planet warmer?

Not so fast. First of all, even though the climate models successfully simulated the global mean observed temperatures over the last 100 years, when the historical temperature & precipitation records at individual stations are compared with the climate model backtest simulations for those stations, the errors are grossly large. Since the global average historical temperatures were successfully simulated that means all the large errors at the individual stations cancel out. That there are such large errors at individual stations obviously means something significant missing in the model physics. Certainly if I was a forecaster and predicted a high temperature of 80* in New York and 60* in Denver but the observed ended up 70* in both places I'm not so sure I'd be bragging about my success even though the average of the two forecasts matched the average observation.

Secondly, there is a huge difference between simulations on historical data (called hindcasts) and forecasts on new independent data. In climate prediction models (and in short-term NWP models as well) there are literally thousands of tunable parameters that can be tweaked to calibrate that parametrization to match the past observed data. These tunable parameters exist because we may not know the exact physics involved or we may need to approximate the physics due to resolution scale of the model (i.e., certain radiative transfer processes). However, with so many tunable parameters it's pretty easy to find at least one configuration that will simulate history quite accurately. In statistics, this is a condition called "over-fitting". The real test for the quality of a model is how well it performs on new independent data that was never previously considered when calibrating on the historical (training) data set.

So how accurate are real-time climate predictions on new data?

Well, so far not that good. Climate models continue to significantly over-forecast the amount of warming compared to observed future temperatures, and that is a big problem which has been going on the last 15-20 years. See link:
https://ktwop.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/73-climate-models_reality.gif

Moreover, the places that were to receive the most amount of warming according to the climate models (mid levels of the atmosphere in the tropics) haven't received any warming. So the climate models are getting that wrong too.

Researchers have been scrambling trying to find a cause for the errors and, while a number of explanations have been proposed, nothing has been shown conclusive. Even the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has conceded in their latest report that they will likely have to adjust the models to make them less sensitive to CO2. The implications of this are enormous. If real-time climate forecasts over-predict the warming on independent data, then that *could* mean that humans have contributed less to the amount of warming observed over the past 100 years than what was previously thought by climate scientists, and that would also imply natural variations have played a more important role in our recent past climate than figured by climate models. It also reduces the certainty of future climate predictions which has all sorts of implications regarding political policy and what future actions are required.

To be continued ...

On Global Warming ... Interview with a Meteorologist, Part 1

Well, since the previous post got me started on the climate change kick I thought for this post I'd continue on the same theme and interview myself in Q&A style and provide some additional insight on the topic of global warming. Rather than make one really long entry, the "interview" will be broken up into several posts.

Bob, are you one of the 97%'ers?

Ha, nice question to start. No, I am not one of the 97% ... but I'm not one of the 3% either. Rather I was never asked to respond to a survey on climate change, along with thousands of other meteorologists. None of my colleagues that I know were surveyed either, a couple of whom are esteemed atmospheric scientists with an incredibly long list of publications and are nationally recognized & respected in the field (i.e., when they talk people listen). I'm not exactly sure who was polled as there are several of these surveys floating around, but you could probably classify all of them in the same category as "4 out of 5 dentists surveyed recommend sugarless gum". For one, I don't doubt that 97% or more of atmospheric scientists would agree with a simple survey question like "human activity probably caused some of the warming the last half-century". However the problem with that result is it doesn't mean those same scientists are going to share the same level of agreement on the myriad of more important hot button issues within the global warming debate (like whether the observed warming is ONLY the result of human activity, or whether additional warming will cause stronger, more destructive storms, or more wild fires, or more droughts, or cause mass extinctions, or flood cities, etc.). In other words, the survey question does NOT address the primary issues of contention that divide climate change skeptics from the supporters. Unfortunately certain media outlets, politicians (and even some scientists) will run with that 97% survey result, take it out of context, and apply it to those other contested issues regarding climate change. In some instances it's an intentional deception on their part and done solely for the pursuit of a political agenda, scoring some ratings points, or garnering more popularity which is unfortunate. Other times the mistake is completely unintentional, but either way the net result is that the public gets misled. Therein lies the main problem and is why the 97% survey result is utterly meaningless. Second, it doesn't matter whether 97% or 100% agree. What matters is if the science is right. I've already seen instances in this field which once had 100% backing but were later shown to be bunk by better science.

Can you give me an example?
 
Sure, my pet peeve ... positive vorticity advection (PVA). PVA is hailed in all the text books and shoved down the throat of every student taking atmospheric dynamics and synoptics classes [and that is still the case today by the way]. PVA is also mentioned in every weather map discussion in university meteorology seminars and forecast classes (often times so that the speaker would give the appearance of knowing what they were talking about, LOL). We were also taught that PVA is the #1 factor for predicting severe thunderstorms and is the leading cause of arthritis flare-ups in senior citizens (OK, just kidding about the arthritis, but you get the idea). Yet when creating models that actually forecast the weather for a given location, PVA never shows up as a meaningful contributor ... because it doesn't work! That said, I don't want to create a straw man here. To be clear, just because there have been past truths in the atmospheric sciences that were later debunked by better science doesn't mean the science behind global warming is at risk to be debunked. But I do want to point out the atmospheric sciences are young, we're learning new things all the time, and there's much we don't know. For sure, the physics are not as exact as the physics which tell us there will be an eclipse on May 20, 2055 at 9:01am. So the bottom line really it's the quality of the science, not the surveys which are important.

So who cares what you think about climate change? Are you a climate specialist? What could you possibly offer to the discussion.

I'm not a climate specialist. Climatology is one of many sub-disciplines under the atmospheric science umbrella. My area of expertise is in short-term (0-7 day) weather forecast modelling and probabilistic prediction. I'm intimately familiar with numerical weather prediction (NWP) models, like the kind climatologists use to predict future climate. So I'm fully aware of how they work, their strengths, weaknesses, capabilities and their limitations. I've also performed extensive work in the area of forecast verification which is full of land mines, and that makes it easier to sniff out weaknesses in a given study or experimental design that generates predictions.

OK, let's deal with specific questions regarding climate change. Is it even possible that humans can change the earth's climate? After all, isn't the earth just too big to be affected by mere humans?

There is absolutely no sliver of doubt that humans *can* alter the climate on our planet. Anyone can verify this for themselves. Just watch the evening news and notice how the night-time temperatures are always colder in the outlying suburbs compared to a populated city. In many cases there can be 10-15 degrees difference especially in winter. Of course this is on a small spacial scale and none of that is related to increases in carbon dioxide, but nonetheless it shows in a simple way that humans can affect the weather.

Has the earth gotten warmer in the last century?

Yes, global temperatures have risen about 1* C the last 100 years.

Has the amount of carbon dioxide increased in the period as well?

Yes, total C02 concentrations have increased over 30% in the last 100 years.


So what's the controversy? Doesn't this prove global warming is real and caused by humans?

Well, it may seem intuitive to think that at first, but I recommend some caution. First, correlation does not equal causation. Ice cream sales have also increased the last 100 years, but nobody is going to blame warmer temperatures on ice cream. Second, while there is indeed a strong physical link relating carbon dioxide and global warming (CO2 is transparent to incoming solar radiation but absorbs outgoing long-wave radiation), the ultimate relationship is not so simple. There are countless feedback mechanisms and interactions with clouds, plants, and oceans which complicate matters greatly. Here's a simple analogy of how a feedback mechanism works. Eating a sugary food causes your blood-sugar level to rise temporarily but a healthy pancreas then responds to secrete enough insulin to maintain stable blood-sugar levels. So in the end despite consuming sugar the blood-sugar level remains the same. There are a "gazillion" of these type of interactions & feedbacks that go on in the atmosphere. So the contribution of increased CO2 toward global warming can't be accurately measured unless all the interactive effects are taken into account. Third, there are instances in our past history when temperatures have risen greater than this without any human intervention, and that makes it a very difficult problem to separate natural (or random) fluctuations versus what humans have contributed.

To be continued ...

Creationists vs. Climate Change Deniers

A recent article published at EarthMagazine.Org makes a claim that there is a link between creationists and climate change deniers. The gist of the article is that (i) both creationists and climate deniers reject mainstream science, and that (ii) both creationists and climate change deniers distort facts in a way that misrepresents science. The link to the full article is provided here:
http://www.earthmagazine.org/article/voices-defending-science-link-between-creationism-and-climate-change

While the article attempts to point out similarities between the two camps, I'd like to point out several differences, especially in terms of the science. [BTW, I'm not a fan of the phrase 'climate change deniers', but since the article uses the term I'll follow along with that phraseology].

First, there is a big difference between how the two groups feel their respective subjects should be taught in school. For example, consider the case of two of the bigger climate change deniers (meteorologists Joe Bastardi and Roy Spencer). I don't think either one would be against the teaching of climate physics in the classroom or would be against increasing our understanding of climate through the scientific method. In contrast, two of the most strident creationists (Ken Ham and Kent Hovind) are clearly against teaching evolution in school and would love to take it out of the text books if given the opportunity and instead have them filled with heaps of creationist propaganda!

Second, while the definition of a creationist is pretty clear cut, the article doesn't really define "climate change denier". Climate change can cover a whole array of hot button topics, much of which is clearly not "settled science". For example, how many times has it been said or written that global warming will result in stronger storms? In fact, every time there's severe weather it seems to get blamed on global warming. So if someone rejects the thesis that global warming will result in stronger storms should that person be labelled a "climate change denier" [even though there is zero observational evidence that warming has resulted in more frequent or stronger storms]? How about people who challenge whether 1700 US cities will be under water by the year 2100? What about those who don't believe that 1 million species on earth will be extinct by 2050? What about those who disagree with irresponsible statements such as "we have only four years left to act on climate change"? What about those who questioned Al Gore's prediction of 20-foot sea level rises by 2100? What about those who laughed at James Hansen's 1989 prediction that NYC would be partly under water by 2020? Should those who challenge such outrageous claims be labelled a "climate change denier"? I don't think so.

So unlike the science that refutes Biblical creation (which shows that the universe is very old, that the earth didn't form before the stars, that all animals were not 'created' at the same time, and that there was no global flood 4000 years ago), there are several aspects of global warming that are by no means conclusive (especially when addressing the potential consequences of global warming). So to lump those who question the more controversial areas of global warming in the same boat as creationists who 'deny science' is inappropriate to say the least and done merely to grab headlines, raise new research money or to pass an agenda.

Third, if I was to ask "what is the chance that the earth is really greater than 10,000 years old", nearly all credible geologists & astronomers would say 100% probability that it is older than 10,000 years. If I was to ask what is the probability that the first stars formed long before earth, nearly all credible cosmologists would say 100% probability that the earth formed long after the first stars. If I was to ask "what is the likelihood that all animal species were NOT created at the same time", nearly all credible scientists in the field would say 100% likelihood. However, if I was to ask "what is the probability that the earth will be warmer in the year 2050 compared to the last decade", I suspect you would find that most atmospheric scientists would shy significantly away from a 100% probability (and vote somewhere between 60-80% probability), especially if they had to wager a large percentage of their personal assets. Therein lies the difference between climate science and that used to prove an old universe or disprove biblical creation. In 50 years I'm sure the universe will still measure a lot more than 10,000 years old. However in weather there is a huge amount of uncertainty regarding the future 50+ years out. Long-range climate prediction is unlike other scientific disciplines and is nowhere near an exact science, unlike the physics which can predict the exact time of a solar eclipse 50 years in advance. Our climate can change with or without human activity in either direction whether we like it or not for natural reasons, just like it has done many times in the past. There may also be technological innovations down the road that curb any problem of CO2 emissions. Furthermore, climate physics are not completely known. There are feedback mechanisms and interactions that clearly are not handled properly in climate models as evidenced by the fact that these models have largely overpredicted the amount of actual warming in real-time forecasts on independent data. So unlike the science that is used to determine the age of the earth/universe or to show that different life forms evolved over millions of years, there are significant uncertainties in the field of climate prediction. Numerical weather prediction (NWP) models also suffer problems of "climate drift" and local biases, which have been known by operational meteorologists for 40+ years. That is why NOAA applies statistical post-processing to short-term predictions (1-7 days) to get these physical models back to reality. Ironically, no such post-processing occurs with climate change models. To label someone as a "denier of science" for pointing out such deficiencies in the models or by casting similar doubt as to our climate future is not appropriate because those uncertainties are genuine. Moreover, the science of climate prediction is still quite young, especially when compared to evolutionary theory or radiometric dating that is used to disprove creationism. There is still a lot to learn about our atmosphere and oceans, and the climate prediction models are far less complex than the real atmosphere. So the next time there is a new report in the news like "new study by climate scientists suggest that global warming will result in crippling snowstorms for the northeast US and prolonged droughts in the plains", well that can be treated similar to new medical studies that make headlines (i.e., eating oatmeal each morning will reduce the risk of heart attacks by 75%). In other words don't toss it out like garbage cause it may be right, but don't treat it as "settled science" either and label those who are skeptical of such claims as deniers of science either.

Fourth, interestingly enough most climate change "deniers" actually agree that the earth has gotten warmer the last 100 years and that humans are probably at least partly to blame. These are the two issues that formulate the "97% consensus" of climate scientists". However, these are not the issues that divide skeptics and "deniers". Rather the contentious issues are in regard to the effects of a warmer planet and whether they will be catastrophic (more storms, droughts, mass extinctions, etc..), and these are far from settled science. Unfortunately some politicians take that "97% consensus", misapply it to topics where there is no consensus, and then label those who disagree on those topics as "deniers". I can guarantee that 97% of climate scientists don't agree that Al Gore's 20 foot rise in sea level by 2100 will happen.

Finally, on the charge that climate change deniers distort science like creationists, well I've also seen it go the other way as well where climate change activists (and some scientists) distort the science in their favor for their agenda. A really good example is the bogus Whitehouse National Climate Assessment report from 2014, which is fraught with errors. Other good examples are most anything said by James Hansen and Al Gore. So this is not a compelling argument used by the authors of the magazine article.

So in summary, while I think the article attempted to make a comparison between climate change deniers and creationists, I think it misses the boat because the author equivocates the science used to refute creationism and the science used to support climate change. Unfortunately, not all science is created equal, and therein lies the problem with attempting to compare the two groups. I have personally witnessed in the meteorological field long-standing "certainties" in textbooks that got shoved down our throats as students which were later shown to be nonsense. So in terms of any discussion on climate change, we just need to do the research, argue over it, validate it, have it pass the smell test, take appropriate action and not waste time trying to label people or make connections between them.

The Godless Delusion

I just finished reading a book called "The Godless Delusion" by Madrid and Hensley. The book is an obvious counter to the Richard Dawkins best-seller titled The God Delusion, and it attempts to represent a Catholic challenge to modern atheism. However the book fails in two respects. One, the arguments are logically flawed, and two many of the authors' comments are so far off base that my blood boils and steam flows out of my ears!

First I'll address the logical errors. The authors actually summed up their case for the existence of God quite succinctly on page 219 ...

"... it is simply not the case that we have argued in a circle or begged the question in the book. Theists don't say, 'God exists:  therefore God exists.' Therefore, neither is our argument circular. If anything it's been structured thus:

A law of morality exists and is known to all --- and therefore, God exists. Consciousness exists, and the mind; reason, and the laws of logic; human worth, dignity, and equal rights; free will, human personality, love purpose, and meaning --- and therefore, God exists."

Now it doesn't take a philosophy major to see the major flaws in their logic ... like where's the proof for starters?! But in fairness to the authors their argument is a little deeper, but not much. Basically it is argued that atheists only believe in the natural world containing material items. However, non-material things exist like consciousness, laws of logic, morality, love, and so on. Since these non-material things exist then atheism is false and therefore the Christian God exists. Putting this into a structured logical argument leads to the following premises & conclusion:

• Atheists believe only in the natural material world;
• Non-material things exist;
• Therefore atheism is an incorrect world view;
• Therefore the Christian God exists.

OK, let's pick apart this argument. First, atheism is only the lack of a belief in a god. It makes no claim about the natural, supernatural, material or non-material world views. They are wholly separate philosophies. So being an atheist does not also mean being a materialist, and vice-versa. Therefore premise #1 is flawed and the whole argument is shot right from the beginning. However, there is another logical flaw. Even if atheism is the wrong world view, that doesn't mean the Christian God exists! The author would need to provide further evidence to show that their God exists and not one of the other thousands of gods worshiped by humans.

The logical flaws notwithstanding, what really irked me were the baseless, irresponsible, and absurd comments made by the authors which were nothing more than a feeble attempt to appeal to emotions but ended up showing their stupidity and immaturity instead. Here are some examples:

" This means out of a total population of some 300 million Americans, 30 million citizens doubt, or outright deny, the existence of God. That's a significant number of people who ... would be in a position to do terrible damage to society."

" ... if the atheist worldview were to be implemented across the board as the basis of societal policy (as it has been, in limited fashion, at times in the 20th century --- with disastrous results), you would definitely not want to live in such a society, so brutal, so tyrannical, and devoid of genuine goodness and beauty would it be."

"We contend that the denial of God's existence leads to the complete disintegration of not only morality, meaning, and human value and dignity, but the possibility of knowledge itself. The atheist worldview leads to foolishness."

"Atheism enables sociopathic behavior by claiming that human life has no intrinsic, transcendent value. That's why as atheism gains ascendancy in the West, there is a concomitant rise in barbaric, inhumane practices such as abortion, fetal stem cell research, cloning, infanticide, and euthanasia. Society's death spiral into darkness, despair, and nihilism is being propelled by naturalism."

"In the atheist worldview it's good for the strong to devour the weak, because that is how the evolution of the species progresses."

In regard to that last idiotic comment, atheism is actually silent with respect to evolution. Remember, atheism only posits that a god does not exist. Atheism is silent to whether evolution is true. Moreover, even though the evidence shows that evolution is true and that "survival of the fittest" played an important role in the past, that doesn't mean someone who believes in evolution also thinks that survival of the fittest is the best policy going forward.

Bottom line ... the authors are complete morons.

Stupidity of Infant Baptism

I've been thinking about the religious custom of Baptism lately, but yet the more I research the topic the more apparent it becomes that the practice is stupid, especially for infants.

According to Christian Doctrine, the purpose of Baptism is to (a) cleanse the body from sin and (b) to be unified with Christ. For infants, item (a) refers to the cleansing of original sin.

OK, so let's dissect baptism a little deeper. In particular I have three objections to the practice.

(1) When parents choose to baptize an infant, they are basically forcing a religion down the throat of their child. How do you know the kid wants to be a Christian? Shouldn't religion be an individual choice a person makes when they are old enough to understand the issues and decide for themselves? After all, you wouldn't raise your kid to be a lawyer just because you are a lawyer. You wouldn't hold a celebration party that indoctrinates your newborn to be a member of a political party either. You also wouldn't arrange a marriage for your child. Those are all personal choices you let a child make when they become an adult, and religion should be that way as well. Although parents may try to be well-meaning by raising their child into a religion thinking it's in their best interest, such is not a necessity in order for the child to turn out intelligent, well-mannered and successful. That can easily be accomplished outside of religion without wasting time and money attending church, confession, Sunday school, etc.

(2) The thought that an infant is born with original sin is probably the most patently absurd and idiotic concepts of all time! If a pregnant mother commits a crime and is sentenced to 20 years in prison, under that logic the baby should also have to spend 20 years in prison if it is to be believed that sin is passed on automatically from one person to the next. Of course we don't punish the child in such a real life situation because our legal system has an ounce of common sense. However, let's look more closely at the so-called "original sin", which occurred when Adam & Eve ate fruit from the forbidden tree after being coaxed into it by a talking snake of all things. Just think of the logic of that for one moment. Is eating a piece of fruit really a sin worthy of causing the fall of all human-kind? Frankly it's nonsense. However, let's dig a little deeper.

Where did concept of "original sin" come from? Well, it certainly didn't come from God. According to Deuteronomy [24:16] God states that "Children should not be punished for the sins of their parents" and that "those deserving to die must be put to death of their own crimes". Moreover, God never stated in Genesis that the offspring of Adam & Eve would be punished for eating the apple. In fact, Noah (who was a descendant of Adam) was described by God as "a righteous man and the only blameless person living on earth." So clearly God didn't believe in original sin. How about Jesus? Well, he never mentioned a word about it in the New Testament. So where did the concept of original sin come from? It was invented by the Apostle Paul [Romans 5:12] who, I should point out, was not an original disciple of Jesus and had never even met Jesus! So the whole thing was basically made up after the fact when inventing the Christian religion. Therefore, the concept that a beautiful newborn baby is littered with "original sin" and needs to be cleansed is total nonsense.

(3) The thought that any parent would want to submit their child's life to Jesus just goes to show that not many people actually read the Bible. Do you know what Jesus teaches? Yeah, I know Jesus tells us to love one another, blah blah. But in particular I'd like every Christian to actually read the New Testament especially the Sermon on the Mount [Matthew 5-7] to see ALL of what Jesus teaches. In reality, Jesus was an idiot and I submit nobody with half a brain would follow his teachings. Here's a sample of his stupidity:

• You shall not get angry with someone or call them an idiot or you will be judged. You shall not curse at anyone or you are in danger of going to hell. Really? So if some drunk driver kills the members of my family and I get angry & curse at the drunk I'm the one that goes to hell?
• If a man looks at a woman with lust he shall gouge out his eyeball and throw it away, otherwise he will be thrown in hell. Really? In that case you would think most of the male population would be walking around blind!
• A man is guilty of adultery if he marries a divorced woman. A woman is guilty of adultery if a man divorces his wife. The punishment? According to the Bible the punishment is death [Leviticus 20:10]. Gee, 50% of marriages end in divorce, and 80% of those divorced remarry. Wow, according to Jesus we should kill off a good chunk of our population.
• Do not resist an evil person. Really? If someone breaks into my house with the intention of doing harm I'm supposed to just let them? If a woman is about to be raped she should let them? If an evil dictator wants to start a war and invade the USA, we should just let them? Sorry but Jesus is an idiot, most rational people would fight back.
• If you are sued in court and lose, give them more than the judgment. Really? Bet the ambulance chasers are Christians, LOL.
• If someone asks for something then give it to them without question. Cool. Mr. Buffett, kindly send me a check for 10 million dollars!
• Love your enemies. Really? Never felt much love for Osama Bin Laden. 
• Keep your gifts to charity private. Hmm, guess that also means goodbye to the Bill Gates Foundation, the Tiger Woods Foundation, and the Michael J. Fox Foundation.
• Do not pray where others can see you. Really? Then exactly why were churches built?
• Do not accumulate wealth on earth. Really? So what shall millions of Americans do with their IRAs?
• Do not worry about every day life - whether you have enough food and drink or enough clothes to wear. God will take care of that. Really? And how many millions of children starve to death each year on the planet hoping for God to take care of them?
• Do not plan for the future. Really? Sorry, but Jesus you're really an idiot.
• Do not judge others. Really? If a gang of obvious thugs is heading your way exactly how am I supposed to survive without judging others?
• Pray for something and you will receive what you ask for. This is very dangerous. Just ask the parents of sick children who ended up dead because their parents thought that praying was better than taking them to a hospital.
• If a town doesn't accept the words of Jesus, the town shall be destroyed in a manner worse than Sodom and Gomorrah [Matthew 10]. Oooh, now we're rolling. Guess we should kill off over half the world's population that doesn't follow Christianity.
• Children who speak disrespectfully of their parents must be put to death [Mark 7:10]. Wow, who would think Jesus would condone killing children.
• To get into heaven you  must sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor [Mark 10:21]. Really? Maybe the Vatican can set an example and give all its net worth to the poor.
• Jesus says that slaves must obey orders from the master or face severe punishment [Luke 12:47]. Another example of outdated morality in the Bible.
• You can not be a disciple of Jesus unless you hate your father, mother, wife and children [Luke 14:26]. Wow, what a monster.
• People who don't believe in Jesus shall be thrown away like useless branches to be gathered into a pile and burned [John 15:6]. This passage served as impetus for the killings during the Inquisition.

So why anyone would want to unite their child with this lunatic named Jesus is beyond my comprehension. Read the Bible and decide for yourself rather than listen to priests who cherry pick only the passages they want you to hear. The reason you don't hear about the passages listed above is because priests would probably lose a chunk of their congregation!

Ray Comfort's Evolution vs. God

Just finished watching Ray Comfort's Evolution vs. God video and just about blew a gasket. If you'd like to torture yourself for about 35 minutes here's the link:  http://www.evolutionvsgod.com/

In the video Comfort interviews a number of scientists and college students and asks them (i) if they believe in evolution and (ii) to provide him a case example that proves evolution (for example where one kind of animal turns into another). When provided with such examples from past fossil records Mr. Comfort responds with "well you didn't actually see it since it happened millions of years ago", and prompts them further to provide evidence he can see today in front of his eyes. When they can't (since that's not how evolution works ... duh!!!) then Comfort suggests a "better" alternative explanation for the diversity of the species ... God.

Now I'm not going to get into a long diatribe on how evolution works and why Ray Comfort is clueless on this topic because it's totally irrelevant. Even if evolution is one day proven to be false, that doesn't mean God exists! Moreover, even without discussing the topic of evolution, there is an overwhelming amount of irrefutable scientific evidence to show that the Bible's explanation of our origins is totally wrong, contrary to Comfort's claim that "all scripture is true."

In the Book of Genesis, it's claimed that God made earth on the first day, before all the stars. Well that's clearly not the case. The oldest stars are 13 billion years old and the earth is 4.5 billion years old. Moreover, the heavy elements that make up a planet can only come from a star that explodes, so there is no way the earth could have preceded the formation of all the stars.

The Bible also claims God created vegetation before the sun was created. This is impossible since plants need sunlight for food and would never form first. The Bible also claims that birds formed before land animals (not true) and that the first land animals were created at the same time as human beings (also not true).

The Bible also claims that the full creation took place in only six days. Unfortunately the evidence shows that our universe & life took billions of years to take shape. This is indisputable. Of course theists will make the lame argument that those weren't literal days in the Bible, but rather one of God's days is much longer. Well that argument flops for the simple reason that it then wouldn't make sense of Adam's age. Being created on day 6 Adam lived beyond day 7, but if one of God's "days" is a much longer time like a billion years, then Adam couldn't have lived that long (he only lived to 960 years according to the Bible).

The Bible also claims there was a global flood high enough to cover the tallest mountains. Unfortunately, there's not enough water to accomplish that. If there was enough water to make it rain that much then the atmospheric pressure would be so great from all the precipitable water in the sky that the temperature on earth would be hundreds of degrees so even Noah would have croaked.

So the point is we know for fact that the Bible is wrong regarding our origins, and regardless of whether evolution is ever falsified. Given that the Bible is wrong, then that certainly lowers the probability of the existence of the Biblical god. To see why, just look at the opposite case. Suppose the Bible said God started the universe started 13.7 billion years ago, and then God created the earth 4.5 billion years ago, and that 1 billion years ago God created the first multi-cellular life form, and from then on life evolved and diversified to the point where 200 thousand years ago humans appeared. Well that would certainly increase the probability of God's existence, wouldn't it? Of course. So given that Genesis in the Bible is totally wrong and obviously written by humans who didn't have a clue, then that certainly increases the probability that the God thing was just something early humans made up because they simply didn't know how anything worked.

Anyway, Comfort makes a couple other statements that give me heartburn. One of which is that people who want to be atheists only do so because they choose to sin. Sorry Ray, but you're way off base. Atheists choose not to believe in God because that's where the evidence leads.

Comfort also says that being an atheist is like living in a closed cell without a window. Again, not true. Being an atheist is actually liberating, knowing that you're not enslaved to outdated, absurd and unnecessary religious beliefs & customs.

Lastly, Ray Comfort states that atheists must believe that something can come from nothing. Again, not true. Atheism is merely the lack of a belief in a God. It makes no claims regarding how the universe formed. But since we're on the subject, I'd like to ask Ray Comfort a question. Which is more probable, scenario A below or scenario B?

Scenario A
- The universe formed naturally out of nothing

Scenario B
- God formed out of nothing
- God obtained unlimited powers out of nothing
- God then made the universe out of nothing

Seems to me like scenario A has fewer absurd things to believe in than the supernatural solution in scenario B.

The Folly of Faith

I wish I had a dollar for every time I've heard "Oh, she is such a great person ... she is a person of faith."

However, I've always wondered why having strong faith is synonymous with being a good person (almost as if you don't have faith then you're a bad person). Such a notion is silly, of course, because being a good person is determined by the harm and good you do to others, not by whether you believe in a supernatural entity. The two are mutually exclusive and it makes about as much sense to say "She is a great person because she has faith that eating whole grain bread will lower her chance of cancer."

In fact, if someone claims to have deep faith then that's just a red flag showing that a person believes in something without having any supporting evidence. In my opinion that is a poor trait for someone to have. Imagine being a defendant in a criminal trial. Would you want the jury to convict you just because they have strong faith in the prosecuting attorney or would you want them to weigh the evidence and form an opinion separate from their faith in the DA?

Interestingly, in a poll conducted by the Federal Bureau of Prisons, Christians make up about 80% of the US population and about 80% of the prison population. In contrast, atheists make up about 4% of the US population but only about 0.2% of the prison population. So, in reality a smaller percentage of atheists are in prison compared to Christians. Admittedly there are flaws in this study (for example, prisoners could become religious after being convicted in hopes of eternal forgiveness). However, I think the numbers are good enough to show that someone's faith has absolutely nothing to do with whether they are a bad or good person.

This post will serve as a lead into to a multi-part series on morality & religion. In particular I'll be dissecting William Craig's argument that the existence of moral values proves the existence of God, and I'll dig deeper into the faith vs. morality issue.

You Can't Tuna Universe, Part 5

This is the final part to the series on Fine Tuning (aka, the final nail in the coffin). In the previous parts it was shown how there were basic flaws in the premises contained in the Fine Tuning Argument (FTA). Also discussed were the objections from mainstream scientists. In this concluding part, it will be shown that if you believe that the FTA proves the existence of God, then you must also conclude that God is controlling our weather intentionally killing innocent people! So strap your seat belts and put on your science helmet!

Roughly 50 years ago it became apparent to meteorologists that the atmosphere here on Earth has its own fine-tuning problem, specifically in the area of numerical weather prediction where physical equations of the atmosphere are applied to initial weather conditions and integrated forward in time to produce a weather forecast.

In the early 1960s Ed Lorenz was performing some of the earliest experiments in computer-based numerical weather prediction. By accident, Lorenz discovered that when the same set of initial weather conditions were input to three decimal places instead of six, the two sets of computer forecasts diverged rapidly apart. That is, very tiny changes in the initial state of the atmosphere grew nonlinearly through time resulting in dramatically different future weather patterns. This became known as the "butterfly effect" after a paper Lorenz presented in 1972 titled "Predictability:  Does the Flap of a Butterfly's Wings in Brazil Set off a Tornado in Texas?". For this discovery Lorenz became known as the Father of chaos theory.

In addition to sensitivity to initial conditions, meteorologists further discovered that the future evolution of the weather is also extremely sensitive to numerous "tunable" physical parameters and constants of the atmosphere. For instance, if the moist adiabatic lapse rate was greater than the observed value of 3* per 1000 feet, then updrafts in thunderstorms would be weaker and there would be less violent weather. There are literally hundreds of these parameters and coefficients which are necessary to accurately describe the physics of our atmosphere including those for cloud radiation budgets, heat and moisture fluxes, turbulence, convection and so on. If any of these factors are altered even slightly then those differences would grow nonlinearly through the forecast period, resulting in dramatically different weather down the road.

In recognition of this meteorological "fine tuning", weather forecast centers around the world have adopted a strategy referred to as ensemble forecasting. Instead of running one computer forecast model from one set of initial conditions as input, the ensemble forecast technique runs dozens of computer forecast models each with a slightly different physics package or from slightly different initial conditions. As a result each computer forecast is different from the other, some more dramatically than others. This provides the meteorologist with information about the most probable future weather along with a measure of the different possibilities.  Those who watch The Weather Channel during hurricane season have probably already seen the output from such ensemble forecasts which typically resembles a spaghetti plot. The link below provides one such example, which is of the possible forecast tracks of tropical storm Sandy roughly 10 days before intensifying to hurricane strength and bashing the NJ/NY coast.

http://www.artofscientia.com/spaghetti-plot-maps-of-tropical-storms-and-hurricanes-as-art/

Notice how the individual model forecast tracks diverge significantly over time only because of tiny differences in initial conditions and physical parameters. So this "fine-tuning" problem is for real in the atmospheric science and is widely acknowledged in the meteorological community.

So how does this relate to the fine tuning argument that God was responsible for creating the universe? Well, in the FTA it was argued that in order for the universe to exist, numerous physical constants have to be in a narrow range of values or else we wouldn't be here, and the odds of them ALL falling in such a narrow range to allow a life-permitting universe are so infinitesimal that a God had to be responsible. Those odds being on the order of one in 10^1050.

Well, in the meteorological fine tuning it ends up that in order for a killer hurricane like Sandy or Katrina to form the antecedent initial conditions several weeks prior to the storm's formation must be exactly tuned to specific values over a broad area. Even the slightest deviation from those precise values would result in no hurricane or one that takes a different path or intensity.

So what are the odds of having a storm exactly like hurricane Katrina form that follows the exact track and exhibits the same evolution of intensity over time? Perhaps not so surprisingly, that probability is far lower than the odds of one in 10^1050 for the formation of a life-permitting universe!

To show this, let's produce very conservative back-of-the-envelop calculations. First suppose there are just five meteorological variables that need to be fine-tuned (temperature, humidity, pressure, wind speed, wind direction). Next suppose there are only 10 possible values that each of those variables could possibly have whereby each value would result in a different weather pattern in the future. Lastly, suppose there are just 1000 locations across the northern hemisphere and 5 levels of the atmosphere (5000 total data points) where the initial conditions must be fine tuned. Again, these are VERY conservative estimates. Yet, when the math is done the probability of getting a storm exactly like Katrina is roughly one part in 10^34,948 (5^10 raised to the 5000th power). This of course is a much more insanely low probability than Hugh Ross's odds of a life-permitting universe mentioned earlier. Moreover, this calculation only considered the fine tuning of the initial conditions. If the fine tuning of the physical parameters are also taken into account the probability would be even insanely lower.

So what are the implications of meteorological fine tuning? Well quite simply, if you think that a God has to be responsible for the formation of the universe because the probability of its formation through the fine tuning of the physical constants is insanely low, then to be consistent you must also conclude that God is responsible for forming Hurricane Katrina since the probability of its formation is even lower. Of course that would mean God was responsible for human death and destruction! Doesn't sit well to theists does it? Well too bad. If theists want to concoct a crazy argument like the FTA to prove God formed the universe, then they have to take the good with the bad and similarly conclude God likes to kill people with tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, and lightning.

Such a notion is silly, of course, because for the most part we can predict the weather. That would make it unlikely that it is being controlled by a God (since it's absurd to think we could forecast what a God would do with good reliability). Of course the error in both arguments is that given enough time and enough space, shit happens! The cosmos is enormous and old, and extremely rare things can happen at any time. That's not a proof of God's existence.

Evolution vs. Creation Debate

Yesterday the ever long debate between evolution and creationism took stage between "The Science Guy" Bill Nye and the director of the Creationist Museum Ken Ham.

Overall I thought Bill Nye performed really well. His point regarding the failure of the wooden ship Wyoming (built in 1905) was excellent for discounting the possibility that a handful of inexperienced people could build an arc that could last at sea for over a year. It was the first time I had ever heard that particular argument made.

Nye was also spot on when he said that we need to get past teaching kids about the Biblical creation stories and teach kids real science. Science and technology is the reason why our lives are so much better than the lives of our ancestors from 100-2000 years ago. Today we have air conditioned homes, cell phones, computers, cars, GPS systems, airplanes, hurricane/tornado warning systems ... none of which wouldn't be possible without using the same science that disproves the Biblical creation myths.

Of course there are a couple of points that I thought Nye could have improved upon. One of these was when he was asked where did the first atoms come from in the Big Bang, Nye responded "we don't know, it's a mystery" which is accurate. However he really could have driven the nail in the coffin with a follow-up like this:

"But just because something is unknown to science doesn't mean a god is responsible for the cause. For example, we don't know why an otherwise healthy middle-age person would get pancreatic cancer, but it would be silly to believe that a loving god caused it. Moreover, there have been many phenomena that at one time in our past were thought to be caused by god (rainbows, eclipses, lightning, motion of the planets, etc.), we even had specific gods in charge of them (e.g., Iris, Zeus, etc.), but later science was able to discover natural causes for each one. So to imply that god must be the cause of the origin of the universe because we don't know the true origin right now, is really a logical fallacy called an argument from ignorance."

However, it's easy to Monday-morning quarterback a debate. I thought Bill Nye did a great job and kicked Ken Ham's butt. Of course, I don't even think the greatest religious apologist & debater of all, William Lane Craig, would have a prayer at defending a 6-day creation, 6000 year old universe, global flood and Noah's arc. Science has simply driven those myths into the ground.

You Can't Tuna Universe, Part 4

In the previous three installments of this series I attempted to shoot down the individual premises within the Fine Tuning Argument (FTA) used by theists to prove the existence of God. In this fourth installment I'll present some of the objections raised in the past by others, and then in the fifth and final installment I'll deliver one final blow using an example from our own atmosphere.

Clearly the objections I raised about the FTA are not the only ones that have been raised. Astrophysicist Neil DeGrasse Tyson objects to the whole notion that the universe is fine-tuned for life. Tyson points out that there are so many things in the universe that can kill us (asteroid, nearby supernova, disease, etc.) and that 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 percent of the universe is uninhabitable for life, hardly what one would consider a grand design by an all-powerful creator. As Tyson eloquently states "the universe is no garden of eden."

Physicist Lee Smolin comically points out that the universe is more fine tuned for black holes than life, since they are more abundant in the cosmos than planets which are capable of supporting life. Historian Richard Carrier makes an excellent point that our universe looks exactly how it would if the universe was created naturally without god. It would have to be enormous in size, very old (to give time for life to evolve naturally somewhere in the universe), and life would only be rarely observed. And this is exactly what we see. In contrast, an all-powerful god would be expected to build a universe that is more benevolent for life.

Perhaps the most vehement objections to the FTA come from physicist Victor Stenger, who argues that many of the physical constants in the universe have to be that way and can not be set to anything other than the values we observed according to established physics and cosmology. He also points out that many of the constants appear to have a narrow window of life-permitting values only because of the units chosen. More importantly, many of the physical constants are not independent of each other, so changing one parameter can be compensated for by a change to another parameter which increases the probability of life-permitting universes. This dependency among many factors also means that accurate probabilities of a life-permitting universe can not be calculated. In his work Stenger was able to show computer simulations whereby viable universes can develop and exist for billions of years even when the physical parameters are simultaneously varied by several orders of magnitude. Plus there is no telling what other forms of life could form in a universe that had different sets of parameters.

So, as you can see, the FTA is a bunch of bunk no matter which angle it's viewed. In the fifth and final part to this series, I'll provide an example from our own atmosphere which shows that if you believe that the FTA is proof of god, then god must be controlling our weather!!

How Stupid is Christianity? Part 1

Had a busy couple weeks at work, and still need to wrap up the Fine Tuning with one last installment. However I had an idea on my mind for a multi-part series on the stupidity of Christianity, and I wanted to belt out part 1 while it's fresh in my mind. So here it goes.

One of the core teachings of Jesus in his famous Sermon on the Mount is that we should love our enemies. The exact quote is from Matthew [6:43-44]:  "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you."

Notwithstanding the fact that nobody in America would love Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein, the stupidity of Christianity is that Jesus doesn't even follow his own teaching, because if you are not righteous you will be punished for eternity [Matthew 25:41, Matthew 25:46, Mark 9:43]!! Moreover, if any household or town doesn't welcome what Jesus preaches, they will be condemned to eternal torture [Matthew 10:14-15]!! To me that sure doesn't sound like Jesus loves his enemies!

This would be like the Pope saying it's wrong to have sex before marriage but then he goes out and hires a prostitute, or that it's wrong to gamble but then spends a week in a Las Vegas casino. Would anybody respect the Pope if he didn't practice what he preaches? Probably not. So why do people respect Jesus for not practicing what he preaches? Reason is people are blind to what's actually in the Bible and simply believe the dribble that comes out of the mouths of pastors without taking the time to do their own research.

Philosophy vs. Science vs. God

I wanted to take a brief pause from the Fine Tuning posts while this topic was still fresh in my head.

Last week at the monthly meeting of our SMASH group (Sarasota Manatee Atheists & Secular Humanists), one of the members made a couple of statements I wanted to expand upon in more detail. Specifically, the claim was made that the question "Does God exist?" is purely a philosophical question and science can not be used to determine whether God exists.

Of course I disagree with that, but maybe there's some bias involved on both ends since the member who made the statement is a philosophy professor and I'm a scientist, LOL. However, looking at the issue as objectively as possible I can't help to think that without question science can address the likelihood of whether a specific God exists, like the God(s) of Christianity.

For starters, numerous Christian apologists (e.g., William Lane Craig, Dinesh D'Souza, Frank Tipler, etc.) are always trying to use science to prove the existence of God. In fact, the fine tuning argument (see my previous posts) is one of their favorites, and Tipler even wrote a book called the "Physics of Christianity". Additionally, science can also be used to debunk the claims of theists. For example, evolution theory disproves creationism. Natural selection debunks claims of intelligent design.

There are also several ways science can be used to determine whether God exists. The most obvious one would be if cosmologists could find a natural cause for the formation of the universe. Another one would be if chemists or biologists could determine how life could form from non-life. If natural solutions to these problems were found then that would certainly lower the probability of the existence of God.

Science could also be used to assess the probability of the existence of a specific God, like the God(s) of the Bible. For example, if the creation story in Genesis was found by modern science to be true, well then the probability of the existence of God would be high. However, if the creation story is proven nonsense by astronomers, anthropologists, archaeologists, geologists, and biologists, then the probability of the Biblical God would much lower. As another example consider the effects of prayer, which can be scientifically evaluated. In the New Testament Jesus said that if you pray and have faith you will receive what you ask. So if praying really works then that would be a positive sign that Jesus really exists. However if the opposite is true that praying has no effect, then that would lower the probability that Jesus exists. One other example to drive the point home is that God is often characterized as having certain properties (e.g., all-powerful and all-loving). Well if needless suffering exists then wouldn't that wouldn't that lower the probability of an all-powerful and all-loving God, and if starvation on earth were to suddenly end with food falling from the sky wouldn't that increase the probability of God's existence? Lastly, it's often said that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. However, this is not necessarily true. For example, if there is no evidence that a goldfish is swimming in the lemon tea that I'm drinking right now, then that would be pretty good evidence that there really are no goldfish in my drink. Likewise, an all-powerful God would easily have the power to come down and say hello to us. The fact that we have no video recording of such an event does lower the probability that a God exists. So by considering all the potential factors, a rational person through science, logic, observation and reason should be able to assess the probability of God's existence.

In a way, trying to assess whether God exists is a similar problem in determining whether your home has any termites. The pest expert can perform a visual inspection to see if there are any living or dead termites. The expert can look for signs of termite damage (i.e., chewed wood, sagging floors, sawdust). The expert can look for mud tubes on the home's foundation. After assessing the evidence the pest control expert can form an opinion on whether there are any termites in the home. Even with the lack of any sign of problems, he may never be able to state with 100% certainty that there there are NO termites in the home since there are areas he may not be able to inspect. However, the expert should be able to make a judgment on whether termites are a problem.

In the same way a person can assess the evidence for the existence of a specific God. Does praying work? Did they see God? Did they witness a supernatural miracle? Are the scriptures accurate and in concordance with modern science? Did scientists discover how life forms from non-life? These are the many ways we can use science, observation and reason to assess whether a God exists. If the question of God's existence is purely a philosophical question, and if it wasn't possible to evaluate the evidence for the existence of God, then atheism would be nothing more than a faith-based viewpoint (like Christianity) rather than one based on critical thinking, objective analysis and scientific application that most atheists believe.

You Can't Tuna Universe, Part 3

In the last post I shot down the first premise of the fine tuning argument (FTA) because it leaves out at least one possible contending choice for the explanation of the physical constants of the universe. This post will deal with the second premise, which eliminates chance and physical necessity from the equation leaving God as the only remaining choice.

In eliminating chance, the theist is solely basing this decision on the insanely low probability (1 in 10^1050) that all the physical constants would fall in a narrow, life-permitting window. However, is that enough information to eliminate chance from contention? The answer is definitely not! Here's why.

Suppose you are gambling in a Las Vegas casino and you start winning money playing blackjack. What information would be needed by the casino operators to prove that you were cheating instead of winning the money by luck (i.e., random chance)? Well, three pieces of information are required:

• The odds of winning a blackjack hand;
• The number of hands played;
• The number of hands won.

So, if the probability of winning a blackjack hand is 48% and you won 8 of the first 10 hands played, well that clearly could have happened by pure luck. However, if you played 10,000 hands and won 8,000 of them, then the casino would have solid evidence that the player and/or dealer was cheating the casino because the odds of winning 8,000 out of 10,000 hands couldn't happen reasonably by luck. Therefore, you need to know more than just the probability of winning in order to eliminate chance from consideration.

Here's another way of looking at it. Suppose I won the lottery in which there were 100 trillion possible number combinations. Does that mean I had to cheat in order to win since I couldn't have possibly overcome those odds? Of course not. If I had played this game 50 trillion times before or I purchased 75 trillion lottery tickets then I could easily win without cheating (or without supernatural intervention from God).

In the case of the FTA, the only information theists have at hand are the fact that we won once (i.e., our universe is life-permitting) and that the odds of a life-permitting universe are very low. Nobody knows how many times a universe tried to form in the past somewhere within the cosmos (i.e., the number of hands played). Nobody knows how many life-permitting universes exist within the cosmos or have existed in the past (i.e., the number of hands won). Without this information, the theist can not eliminate chance from premise 2. Therefore the entire FTA is unsound and must be discarded.

In part 4 of this series I'll list common objections that have been raised in the past by physicists which will really tighten the noose around the neck of the FTA.

You Can't Tuna Universe, Part 2

This is the second post in a series debunking the Fine Tuning Argument (FTA) used by theists to "prove" the existence of God.

At the end of the first post I pointed out the flaw in the first premise of the FTA ... namely that it is all too easy to omit a possible contender from the list of options. In the FTA the first premise argues that the explanation of the fine-tuning of the physical constants must be due to either physical necessity, chance or intelligent design (God). In the second premise theists rule out random chance due to the insanely low probability of all the constants appearing in a narrow window for life to occur. Theists also rule out physical necessity because there is no requirement that a universe MUST be life permitting. So that just leaves God. How convenient!

Unfortunately for the apologist, they are leaving out one important contender from the first premise ... that there's a physical explanation for the values of the constants but science isn't advanced enough to provide a thorough explanation just yet! Now this may initially sound like a cop out or a "physics of the gap argument", but there is actually a large body of historical precedence in favor of such an explanation.

At one time several thousand years ago nobody knew what caused thunderstorms, rainbows and solar eclipses. So those phenomena were thought to be caused by a God, and several gods were invented for each one (e.g., Zeus, Iris, Helius, etc.). Of course, today we are smarter and have natural explanations for each of these phenomena, and the Gods who were once worshiped are now in the trash heap of the almighty known as mythology. Even by the 1600s the eminent Sir Isaac Newton thought that the regular motions of the planets "could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent being." Well, today we know how solar systems form and what the planetary motions would be like in those naturally forming systems. Again we figured out no god is required.

So how do we know there isn't a physical explanation why the physical constants appear to fall in a narrow window required for life? Isn't it very possible that our body of knowledge in cosmology just hasn't advanced enough yet? What would happen if this debate was happening 2000 years ago and theists were using the observation of a rainbow as evidence for the existence of God?

Well, the argument might go something like this:
Premise 1: Rainbows are caused either by chance, physical necessity or God.
Premise 2: Rainbows are not the result of chance or physics.
Premise 3: Rainbows therefore are caused by God.

The apologist would eliminate physical necessity from premise 2 because at that time they didn't know any physics or optics, and they would eliminate chance as well because the odds of all those colors forming in that pattern are astronomically low. How low? Well let's do some back-of-the-envelope calculations, pretending of course we don't know the physics of rainbows.

Suppose there are 10 color choices (red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, violet, clear, white and black). In actuality rainbows have over 100,000 distinct colors our eyes can detect, but only 10 are needed to make the point. Next, assume it's a typical rainbow that has an arc length of one mile (5280 feet) and a width of 100 feet. This results in a rainbow of 528,000 square feet in size. Last, for convenience assume a "pixel" size of one square foot and that there can only be one color in each pixel. Remember, we're assuming this argument is taking place 2000+ years ago when we didn't know there could be hundreds of water drops in each "pixel" that can produce their own color.

Given the ultra-conservative numbers presented above (10 colors & 528,000 pixels), the probability of a rainbow appearing in the sky by random chance would be just one in 10^528,000 (that's 10 raised to the 528,000th power)!! Of course this number is even lower than Hugh Ross's probability of a life-permitting universe (1 in 10^1050). No wonder why people in ancient civilizations attributed the formation of a rainbow to a creation from God, LOL.

Today, however we know the optics of rainbows and know that the "pixels" are not independent of each other. However 2000 years ago if they eliminated chance as an explanation based on the extremely low probability (just like they are doing today with fine tuning of the constants) they would have been gravely mistaken. So in reality, the theist can not eliminate the strong possibility that there is a physical explanation for the fine-tuning of the physical constants (that we just don't know yet). As such, premise 1 is flawed which makes the entire FTA unsound.

In the next installment I'll shoot down premise #2.