tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-51184507619206115272023-11-15T05:48:40.793-08:00The Skeptical Thinker (Religion, Politics, Science, Statistics and More)Leetchy2http://www.blogger.com/profile/04112124250312960974noreply@blogger.comBlogger31125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5118450761920611527.post-57712763881812223622017-02-28T07:42:00.001-08:002017-06-05T18:51:19.928-07:00An Open Letter to Bill Nye (aka, The Science Guy)The following email was sent to Bill Nye (The Science Guy) in August 2015. Unfortunately to this day I have still not received a reply.<br />
<br />
<table bgcolor="#ece9d8" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="width: 100%px;">
<tbody>
<tr bgcolor="#ece9d8">
<td><div>
To: bnsg@billnye.com</div>
<div>
Cc: bill.nye@planetary.org </div>
<div>
Subject: climate change deniers</div>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<div>
Dear Mr. Nye,<br />
<br />
I appreciate your efforts to promote science and make
it popular. However, as someone who has studied atmospheric science for the past
30+ years I feel your use of the phrase "climate change <span style="color: red;"><b>denier</b></span>" is entirely inappropriate. Please read my
reasoning below.<br />
<br />
1) The 97% consensus of climate scientists is very
specific and only pertains to the earth getting warmer the past 50 years partly
as a result of the burning of fossil fuels. Climate change is a huge field, and
there are a host of hot-button issues that are definitely not settled and are up
for debate. These include the following:
<br />
<ul>
<li>Whether there will be stronger and more frequent hurricanes & tornadoes.
Contrary to popular belief there is no observational evidence that warmer
temperatures will lead to an increase in extreme storms. It's even stated as
such in the IPCC reports that there is no link.
</li>
<li>Whether there will be greater incidences of severe drought. So far
observational evidence shows no change over time despite a huge increase of CO2.
</li>
<li>Whether there will be more extreme precipitation events. So far,
observations show no significant trend in precipitation extremes.
</li>
<li>Whether there will be food shortages & global hunger. So far, crop
yields have increased substantially despite the increase of CO2 &
temperature.
</li>
<li>How much warming will occur in the future. So far, climate models have
over-predicted the actual amount of warming by a factor of three on independent
data.
</li>
<li>Whether there will be mass extinctions.
</li>
<li>Whether we are currently at the optimal temperature of the Earth.
</li>
<li>Exactly how to reduce CO2 emissions without causing other
environmental issues or economic strain. </li>
</ul>
To state that the science is
settled regarding climate change is as ridiculous as saying that astronomy is
settled. There are not 97% of climate scientists who agree that there will be
more tornadoes, for example. Those who refuse to recognize the fact that there
is no consensus on numerous aspects of climate change and desire to kill any
further debate on them (while at the same time ridiculing the opposition as
"deniers") are actually the ones squashing the scientific process.<br />
<br />
2)
While I admit there are those who erroneously reject the observation that the
earth has gotten warmer, on the other side of the spectrum there are extreme
activists in the climate change community who continue to issue their own
apocalyptic predictions that are outside mainstream opinion. For example, James
Hansen (former NASA climate scientist) once predicted in 1989 that New York City
will be under water by 2020. He also said in 2009 that we only have 4 years to
act on climate change or we'll have passed a tipping point. Now he is predicting
that some coastal cities will only have a few more decades of habitability. One
peer-reviewed publication predicted that 25% of all species will be extinct by
2050 because of global warming. In 2000, climatologist David Viner said in a few
years winter snowfall will become a very rare event, and of course Al Gore
predicted 20-foot sea level increases in the "near future".<br />
<br />
The media
loves the hype too as these extreme views seem to get plenty of press coverage,
especially after a significant weather event. However, to think that such
outlandish & irresponsible predictions represent some scientific consensus
view and can not be challenged without the risk of being labelled as a "denier
of science" is absurd. Should those extreme views be given a free pass without
contest or equal press coverage? Of course not, and in these cases the
challengers are not science deniers, but rather <b>junk</b> science deniers
which is a good thing as it preserves scientific integrity.<br />
<br />
3) Lastly,
the phrase "climate change denier" is completely void of meaning, unless
"climate" and "change" are pre-defined. For example, which aspect of climate is
being denied? Temperature? Precipitation? Drought? Hurricane frequency? Also,
what change is being denied? Past observed changes? Predicted future change from
climate models? Predicted future change from extreme activists? What magnitude
of change is being denied? Only the portion from human causes or the combination
of human + natural variation? The need for specifics is important, and blanket
statements like "climate change denier" are hollow.<br />
<br />
I hope you will
consider these points and refrain from further use of the "D" word in the
future.<br />
<br />
Regards,<br />
Bob Vislocky </div>
Leetchy2http://www.blogger.com/profile/04112124250312960974noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5118450761920611527.post-58106114732525372672016-04-28T16:01:00.004-07:002017-06-05T18:54:23.396-07:00On Baseball and Climate ChangeSo last week Bill Nye (the "Science Guy") tweeted an insinuation that climate change may be responsible for the Houston floods that cost the lives of seven people and five billion in damages. Here's the exact tweet:<br />
<a href="https://twitter.com/BillNye/status/722202143881588736">https://twitter.com/BillNye/status/722202143881588736</a><br />
<br />
This isn't the first time Mr. Nye has issued similar tweets after various weather events. For example, here's a tweet when Tropical Storm Bill was approaching Texas while Alaska was receiving above normal temperatures:<br />
<a href="https://twitter.com/billnye/status/610864461918937088">https://twitter.com/billnye/status/610864461918937088</a><br />
<br />
Last year, Nye lashed out at meteorologists for failing to link the 2015 Texas floods and Oklahoma tornadoes to climate change:<br />
<a href="http://www.infowars.com/bill-nye-the-everything-is-climate-change-guy-blames-texas-floods-on-climate-change">http://www.infowars.com/bill-nye-the-everything-is-climate-change-guy-blames-texas-floods-on-climate-change</a>/<br />
<br />
Combining these events with other notable recent weather events ... Hurricane Sandy (largest Atlantic storm measured by diameter), Hurricane Patricia (strongest 1-minute sustained winds on record) and the significant flooding in Myrtle Beach partly caused by Hurricane Joaquin ... and it certainly gives pause to consider the possibility of whether Bill Nye is correct, that these events are linked to climate change.<br />
<br />
However, with all due respect to the Science Guy, his tweets are way off base and here's why. Even in an unchanging climate, new weather records and unusual weather events are guaranteed to occur on a regular basis. It's a mathematical inevitability. To see that in a simple way an analogy is presented from major league baseball, where baseball records are broken all the time without any changes to the sport. For example, below is a list of some of the new records that were made or broken in the 2015 playoffs:<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>First time a lead off batter hits inside-the-park home run to start a world series.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Longest game 1 in history of world series. </li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>NY Mets Daniel Murphy became the first player to hit a home run in six consecutive playoff games.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Chicago Cubs set a record for most home runs hit by a team in a single playoff game (6).</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Wrigley Field in Chicago got its first playoff series win since opening 100 years ago.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Most post-season home runs on a single day (21).</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Most post-season total runs on a single day (61). </li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Kyle Schwarber set a record for the most post-season home runs before turning 23 years of age.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Alcides Escobar sets the longest hitting streak in a single post-season (15 games). </li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Royals set single postseason record for the most comeback wins after trailing by multiple runs (7).</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Royals were the first team to score 5 runs in an extra inning of a world series game.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Royals only team in history to win 3 world series games after trailing the 8th inning or later.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Royals most runs scored in the 7th inning or later in a single postseason (51).</li>
</ul>
Now, did major league baseball change during 2015? Of course not, same rules and same baseball fields. Yet despite the lack of significant changes to the sport new records are made in baseball every year, and it doesn't require a change in the nature of baseball to do so. As mentioned above it's a statistical inevitability. <b>As the sample size increases chances are something extreme will happen</b>.<br />
<br />
Here's another way to look at it, this time using analogies from other areas. For example, the more days you spend driving in a car the more likely over time it becomes that at some point you'll get in a car accident. The more rounds of golf you play the more likely it is that some day you'll make a hole-in-one. The more times you spend outside in a thunderstorm the more likely it becomes that one day you'll eventually get struck by lightning. The more days you invest in the stock market the more likely it will become that your money will be subject to a market crash.<br />
<br />
Similarly, with thousands of cities around the world, chances are weather records are going to be broken somewhere on the planet in a given day/week/month and it doesn't mean that the climate is changing. That is the point I hope to drive home with this post, and the point that is lost by many who talk about climate change. New records and strong storms do not by themselves equate to climate change. <b>To assess whether the climate is changing the long term frequency trends must be plotted.</b><br />
<br />
For example, here is a plot of violent tornadoes vs. year. Note that there is no increase in the number of tornadoes over time.<br />
<a href="http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/tornado/clim/EF3-EF5-t.png">http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/tornado/clim/EF3-EF5-t.png</a> <br />
<br />
Here's one for global tropical storms and hurricanes. Again note that there is no trend in these storms over time.<br />
<a href="http://coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/frequency_12months.png">http://coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/frequency_12months.png</a><br />
<br />
Here's one for extreme precipitation:<br />
<a href="http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c01a3fd3875a6970b-pi">http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c01a3fd3875a6970b-pi</a> <br />
<br />
So, as much as Bill Nye wants to preach climate change is responsible for all the recent storms, unfortunately there is no signal in the data to support his tweets.Leetchy2http://www.blogger.com/profile/04112124250312960974noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5118450761920611527.post-687431828456501372015-08-11T10:18:00.000-07:002017-07-28T08:53:20.014-07:00On Settled Science and DenialOf course we're talking about climate change! Is the science really settled? Is there really a scientific consensus? Well, the answer is an unequivocal it DEPENDS! Let me explain further.<br />
<br />
In reality, climate change is a huge field. To say that it's settled or that climate change is a fact is almost like saying Astronomy is settled. It's a completely meaningless statement. In Astronomy there are some things that are known (e.g., the universe is very old, some 13.7 billion years); but there are many things that are unknown or up for debate (e.g., the nature of dark energy or whether Pluto is really a planet, LOL). To make a blanket statement that the science of Astronomy is settled fact would, of course, be entirely meaningless.<br />
<br />
In a similar vein, suggesting that the debate is over and the science is settled regarding climate change is likewise misguided. If the entire field of climate change is settled science then there would be no need to provide further funding for climate research and there would only be one climate model instead of over 100 different models. To the contrary, while there are specific aspects of climate change that are conclusive, there are also many areas which are clearly not settled and don't have a scientific consensus. So below is a short list of what is and isn't settled regarding climate change. NOTE: this is just a very tiny sampling just to make my point and is not meant to be comprehensive by any means.<br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;"><b>Settled:</b></span><br />
1) The average temperature of the earth has increased in the last century. Yes, global warming is real.<br />
<a href="https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-content/sotc/global/2014/ann/timeseries/land-ocean-combined.png">https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-content/sotc/global/2014/ann/timeseries/land-ocean-combined.png</a><br />
2) Carbon dioxide concentration has increased over the past century.<br />
<a href="http://www.behindenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Atmospheric_carbon_dioxide_concentrations_and_global_annual_average_temperatures_over_the_years_1880_to_2009.png">http://www.behindenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Atmospheric_carbon_dioxide_concentrations_and_global_annual_average_temperatures_over_the_years_1880_to_2009.png</a> <br />
3) It is likely that a portion of the warming in the last 50 years can be attributed to human activity and the burning of fossil fuels. This is because of the known relationship between CO2 and the absorption of long-wave radiation that would normally escape the earth's atmosphere.<br />
<a href="https://images.nature.com/full/nature-assets/nmat/journal/v10/n11/images/nmat3123-f1.jpg">https://images.nature.com/full/nature-assets/nmat/journal/v10/n11/images/nmat3123-f1.jpg</a><br />
4) Sea ice extent measured on a global scale has been slowly decreasing as a result of warming.<br />
<a href="http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg">http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg</a><br />
5) Sea levels the last 30 years have been rising at a rate that is slightly greater than the background rate because of such warming.<br />
<a href="https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/images/sea-level-rise.gif">https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/images/sea-level-rise.gif</a> <br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;"><b>Not Settled:</b></span><br />
1) Whether there will be stronger and/or more frequent hurricanes & tornadoes. Contrary to popular belief, right now there is no observational evidence that warmer temperatures will lead to an increase in extreme storms. Here are the relevant graphs:<br />
<a href="http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/tornado/clim/EF3-EF5.png">http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/tornado/clim/EF3-EF5.png</a><br />
<a href="http://policlimate.com/tropical/frequency_12months.png">http://policlimate.com/tropical/frequency_12months.png</a><br />
2) Whether there will be greater incidences of severe drought. So far the observational evidence shows no change over time despite a huge increase in CO2:<br />
<a href="http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c01b7c73ad9d6970b-pi">http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c01b7c73ad9d6970b-pi</a><br />
<a href="http://www.loudounhistory.org/graphics/history-photos/palmer-drought-index-md.gif">http://www.loudounhistory.org/graphics/history-photos/palmer-drought-index-md.gif</a><br />
3) Whether there will be more extreme precipitation events. So far, the observational data shows no such trend in precipitation extremes (though in fairness it does look like average yearly precipitation has increased by a very tiny amount):<br />
<a href="http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c01a3fd3875a6970b-pi">http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c01a3fd3875a6970b-pi</a> <br />
4) Whether there will be food shortages & global hunger. So far, crop yields have increased substantially despite the increase of CO2 & temperature:<br />
<a href="http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c01a511933417970c-pi">http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c01a511933417970c-pi</a><br />
5) How much future warming to expect. Based on real-time forecasts on independent data (not hindcasts), climate models have over-predicted the actual amount of warming by a factor of three:<br />
<a href="http://postimg.org/image/lo20ytvg9/">http://postimg.org/image/lo20ytvg9/</a><br />
6) Whether there will be mass extinctions.<br />
7) Whether we are currently at the optimal temperature for the Earth.<br />
8) Exactly how to reduce CO2 emissions without causing other environmental issues.<br />
<br />
Hopefully, the point is clear. There are numerous aspects of climate change that are not settled and require further research. Some of these issues are highly debatable & controversial. <span style="color: red;"><b>Those who refuse to recognize that fact and are eager to kill any further discussion regarding climate change are actually the ones squashing the scientific process</b></span>.<br />
<br />
Furthermore, while there are those on the fringe who erroneously reject the observation that the earth has gotten warmer, on the other side of the spectrum there are some who wish to extinguish any discussion of the unsettled topics listed above, issue their own apocalyptic projections, and quickly label those who object as "deniers". Please keep in mind that the 97% consensus of climate scientists is very specific and only pertains to the earth getting warmer and humans being at a minimum partly responsible. It is not applicable to the unsettled topics within climate science. There are not 97% of climate scientists who agree that there will be more tornadoes, or that the warming will be catastrophic. Unfortunately, some politicians run with that 97% figure and erroneously apply it to other facets of climate change implying those aspects are settled. This is known as a misrepresentation logical fallacy.<br />
<br />
In a similar vein, the phrase "climate change denier" is a completely meaningless phrase as well, unless "climate" and "change" are predefined. For example, which aspect of climate is being denied? Temperature, precipitation, drought, hurricane frequency? What change is being denied? Past observed change, model predicted future change, forecast changes issued by extreme activists? What magnitude of change is being denied? Is it the change in the average or the standard deviation? What cause of the change is being denied? Human, natural? <span style="color: blue;"><b>The need for specifics is important, and blanket statements like "climate change denier" are hollow. </b></span><br />
<br />
Lastly, while there are some radio talk show hosts who mistakenly treat global warming as a hoax invented by the Chinese, there are also fringe climate change activists whose views and/or predictions are also equally extreme. For example, one famous NASA scientist back in 1989 predicted New York would be partly under water by 2020 and today is predicting only a few more decades of habitability for some coastal cities. One Nobel Prize winner who made a popular movie predicted a 20-foot sea level rises in the "near future". Another publication warned that 25% of all species could be extinct before 2050 because of global warming. The media loves the hype too as these extreme views seem to get plenty of press coverage, especially when there's a significant weather event. However, to think that such outlandish & irresponsible predictions represent some scientific consensus view and can not be challenged without the risk of being labelled as a "denier of science" is absurd. Should those extreme views be given a free pass without contest or equal press coverage? Of course not, and in these cases the challengers are not science deniers, but rather <span style="color: blue;"><b>junk</b></span> science deniers which is a good thing as it preserves the scientific process.Leetchy2http://www.blogger.com/profile/04112124250312960974noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5118450761920611527.post-29856606738035987782015-01-04T09:35:00.001-08:002015-08-03T06:06:07.800-07:00How Often are Weather Forecasters Right?Too often I hear the question, "how often are weather forecasters right"? I also hear responses like "weathermen are always wrong", LOL. However, the original question deserves a response, but fair warning ... be careful of what you ask for!<br />
<br />
Believe it or not, the question regarding the accuracy of weather forecasts is actually not a pertinent question to ask. The reason is because it's not the accuracy that matters!!<br />
<br />
Let me explain further with an example. Suppose two weather forecasters are trying to predict the occurrence of tornadoes in the city of Norman, OK. Forecaster #1 always predicts there will be no tornadoes. Forecaster #2 predicts no tornadoes on 86 of the 90 days in summer but does predict tornadoes on 4 of the days. Suppose tornadoes happen on 1 of the days that Forecaster #2 predicts but there are no more tornadoes the rest of summer.<br />
<br />
In this scenario, Forecaster #1 had an error rate of 1.11% (1 wrong forecast out of 90) and Forecaster #2 had an error rate of 3.33% (3 wrong out of 90). So the error rate for Forecaster #2 was three times higher than that of #1. But was Forecaster #1 really better despite a lower error rate?<br />
<br />
Let's examine more closely. Forecaster #2 was correct on all 86 of his no-tornado predictions. On 3 of his 4 tornado forecasts he was wrong, causing people to take cover when none was necessary. However 1 of his tornado forecasts was correct, saving countless lives.<br />
<br />
In contrast, Forecaster #1 was correct on 89 of 90 no-tornado forecasts, but missed the one day when tornadoes did occur, causing the deaths of hundreds of people.<br />
<br />
So wouldn't you rather have Forecaster #2 as your meteorologist over #1? I think the answer is obvious since you might be dead with #1 but still alive with 2 despite the higher error rate. That is the reason why percent correct scores are misleading. They assume the value of a correct positive forecast is the same as the value of a correct negative forecast. That is the reason why the question "how accurate are weather forecasters" is not pertinent.<br />
<br />
The real question is do weather forecasters add economic value and save lives? I believe the answer is an unequivocal yes. Rather than show endless charts and graphs to support that, I'll just leave you with the following forecast from the National Weather Service issued prior to the arrival of Hurricane Katrina. I wonder how many lives were saved.<br />
<br />
<pre>URGENT — WEATHER MESSAGE
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Weather_Service" title="National Weather Service">NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Orleans" title="New Orleans">NEW ORLEANS</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana" title="Louisiana">LA</a>
...DEVASTATING DAMAGE EXPECTED...
HURRICANE KATRINA...A <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_most_intense_tropical_cyclones" title="List of the most intense tropical cyclones">MOST POWERFUL HURRICANE WITH UNPRECEDENTED</a>
STRENGTH... RIVALING THE INTENSITY OF <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Camille" title="Hurricane Camille">HURRICANE CAMILLE</a> OF 1969.
MOST OF THE AREA WILL BE UNINHABITABLE FOR WEEKS...PERHAPS LONGER. AT
LEAST ONE HALF OF WELL CONSTRUCTED HOMES WILL HAVE ROOF AND WALL
FAILURE. ALL <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gable" title="Gable">GABLED</a> ROOFS WILL FAIL...LEAVING THOSE HOMES SEVERELY
DAMAGED OR DESTROYED.
THE MAJORITY OF INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS WILL BECOME NON FUNCTIONAL.
PARTIAL TO COMPLETE WALL AND ROOF FAILURE IS EXPECTED. ALL WOOD
FRAMED LOW RISING APARTMENT BUILDINGS WILL BE DESTROYED. CONCRETE
BLOCK LOW RISE APARTMENTS WILL SUSTAIN MAJOR DAMAGE...INCLUDING SOME
WALL AND ROOF FAILURE.
HIGH RISE OFFICE AND APARTMENT BUILDINGS WILL SWAY DANGEROUSLY...A
FEW TO THE POINT OF TOTAL COLLAPSE. ALL WINDOWS WILL BLOW OUT.
AIRBORNE DEBRIS WILL BE WIDESPREAD...AND MAY INCLUDE HEAVY ITEMS SUCH
AS <a class="mw-redirect" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_appliance" title="Household appliance">HOUSEHOLD APPLIANCES</a> AND EVEN LIGHT VEHICLES. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sport_utility_vehicle" title="Sport utility vehicle">SPORT UTILITY VEHICLES</a>
AND <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_truck" title="Light truck">LIGHT TRUCKS</a> WILL BE MOVED. THE BLOWN DEBRIS WILL CREATE
ADDITIONAL DESTRUCTION. PERSONS...PETS...AND LIVESTOCK EXPOSED TO THE
WINDS WILL FACE CERTAIN DEATH IF STRUCK.
POWER OUTAGES WILL LAST FOR WEEKS...AS MOST POWER POLES WILL BE DOWN
AND TRANSFORMERS DESTROYED. WATER SHORTAGES WILL MAKE HUMAN SUFFERING
INCREDIBLE BY MODERN STANDARDS.
THE VAST MAJORITY OF NATIVE TREES WILL BE SNAPPED OR UPROOTED. ONLY
THE HEARTIEST WILL REMAIN STANDING...BUT BE TOTALLY DEFOLIATED. FEW
CROPS WILL REMAIN. LIVESTOCK LEFT EXPOSED TO THE WINDS WILL BE
KILLED.
</pre>
<br />Leetchy2http://www.blogger.com/profile/04112124250312960974noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5118450761920611527.post-33424428844395031562014-09-24T13:18:00.000-07:002017-06-05T19:07:53.540-07:00The Condensed Skeptics Argument Against CAGWBelow is the condensed version of the arguments that skeptics make in regard to <span style="color: blue;"><b>catastrophic</b></span> anthropogenic global warming.<br />
<br />
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".<br />
<br />
The main issues that divide the two camps are as follows:<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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. <span style="color: blue;">[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].</span><br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
7. There is no way of knowing how the future climate will change as a result of <b>both</b> human and natural influences. All efforts made to curb global warming today could ultimately be a waste of time and money.<br />
<br />
<br />Leetchy2http://www.blogger.com/profile/04112124250312960974noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5118450761920611527.post-77234684588071063212014-08-15T21:44:00.002-07:002017-06-05T20:00:51.139-07:00On Global Warming ... Interview with a Meteorologist, Part 4<span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: black;">Here's the final instalment of my interview. </span></span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: black;"> </span><b> </b></span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><b>So where do we go from here? What action items do we take?</b></span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: black;">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.</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="color: blue;"><b>Any other recommendations?</b></span></span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: black;">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.</span></span> </span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="color: blue;"><b>What good has come out of the debate over climate change?</b></span></span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: black;">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.</span></span></span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: black;">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. </span></span></span><b> </b></span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;"><b>What things do you dislike about the climate change debate?</b></span><br />
<br />
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:<br />
http://policlimate.com/tropical/frequency_12months.png<br />
http://policlimate.com/tropical/global_running_ace.png <br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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").<br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;"><b>Is there any aspect of a warming planet that does concern you?</b></span><br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;"><b>Any parting words?</b></span><br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="color: blue;"><b>This concludes the "interview". Thanks for reading!</b></span></span></span><br />
<br />
<br />Leetchy2http://www.blogger.com/profile/04112124250312960974noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5118450761920611527.post-85102765922257819692014-08-13T20:42:00.000-07:002017-06-05T19:58:00.451-07:00On Global Warming ... Interview with a Meteorologist, Part 3Continuing with my interview of myself ...<br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;"><b>Sounds like you have an agenda to drive a stake in the hearts of climate activists.</b></span><br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<span style="color: blue;"><b></b></span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><b><br /></b></span>
<span style="color: blue;"><b>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.</b></span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: black;">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".</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="color: blue;"><b>The 97% challenge? Are you making fun of the climate change surveys?</b></span></span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: black;">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.</span></span></span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="color: blue;"><b>OK, so what's the challenge?</b></span></span></span></span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: black;">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!</span></span></span></span></span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: black;">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</span></span></span></span>. 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.</span></span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: black;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: black;">To be continued ...</span></span>Leetchy2http://www.blogger.com/profile/04112124250312960974noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5118450761920611527.post-67487470444971842762014-08-11T12:20:00.002-07:002017-06-05T19:54:46.093-07:00On Global Warming ... Interview with a Meteorologist, Part 2Here is part 2 of my interview with myself on global warming.<br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;"><b>So, then how do climatologists conclude that the increased warming is due to increased levels of carbon dioxide?</b></span><br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;"><b>So tell me more about these climate models.</b></span><br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;"><b>Since the computer models say the warming is due to human activity then the science is settled, right?</b></span><br />
<br />
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):<br />
http://www.atmos.umd.edu/~ekalnay/syllabi/AOSC630/Antolick2013.pdf<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<span style="color: blue;"><b><br /></b></span>
<span style="color: blue;"><b>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?</b></span><br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;"><b>So how accurate are real-time climate predictions on new data?</b></span><br />
<br />
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:<br />
https://ktwop.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/73-climate-models_reality.gif<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
To be continued ...Leetchy2http://www.blogger.com/profile/04112124250312960974noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5118450761920611527.post-13846821154820830832014-08-07T21:11:00.001-07:002017-06-05T19:50:09.870-07:00On Global Warming ... Interview with a Meteorologist, Part 1Well, 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.<br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;"><b>Bob, are you one of the 97%'ers?</b></span><br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;"><b>Can you give me an example?</b></span><br />
<b> </b> <br />
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.<br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;"><b>So who cares what you think about climate change? Are you a climate specialist? What could you possibly offer to the discussion.</b></span><br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;"><b>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?</b></span><br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;"><b>Has the earth gotten warmer in the last century?</b></span><br />
<br />
Yes, global temperatures have risen about 1* C the last 100 years.<b> </b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<span style="color: blue;"><b>Has the amount of carbon dioxide increased in the period as well?</b></span><br />
<br />
Yes, total C02 concentrations have increased over 30% in the last 100 years.<br />
<br />
<b> </b><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><b>So what's the controversy? Doesn't this prove global warming is real and caused by humans?</b></span><br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
To be continued ...<br />
<br />
<br />Leetchy2http://www.blogger.com/profile/04112124250312960974noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5118450761920611527.post-68978622299999811552014-08-03T21:12:00.001-07:002017-06-05T19:16:42.832-07:00Creationists vs. Climate Change DeniersA 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:<br />
http://www.earthmagazine.org/article/voices-defending-science-link-between-creationism-and-climate-change<br />
<br />
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].<br />
<br />
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! <br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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. <b>However</b>, 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), <b>especially if they had to wager a large percentage of their personal assets</b>. 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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<br />Leetchy2http://www.blogger.com/profile/04112124250312960974noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5118450761920611527.post-90333971290110349102014-07-28T18:54:00.000-07:002014-07-28T19:08:30.886-07:00The Godless DelusionI 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!<br />
<br />
First I'll address the logical errors. The authors actually summed up their case for the existence of God quite succinctly on page 219 ...<br />
<br />
"... 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:<br />
<br />
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."<br />
<br />
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:<br />
<ul>
<li>Atheists believe only in the natural material world;</li>
<li>Non-material things exist;</li>
<li>Therefore atheism is an incorrect world view;</li>
<li>Therefore the Christian God exists.</li>
</ul>
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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:<br />
<br />
" 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."<br />
<br />
" ... 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."<br />
<br />
"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."<br />
<br />
"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."<br />
<br />
"In the atheist worldview it's good for the strong to devour the weak, because that is how the evolution of the species progresses."<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
Bottom line ... the authors are complete morons.<br />
<br />
<br />Leetchy2http://www.blogger.com/profile/04112124250312960974noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5118450761920611527.post-89759271753136567212014-05-24T22:36:00.000-07:002014-06-05T18:44:20.106-07:00Stupidity of Infant BaptismI'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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
OK, so let's dissect baptism a little deeper. In particular I have three objections to the practice.<br />
<br />
(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.<br />
<br />
(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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
(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:<br />
<ul>
<li><i><span style="color: blue;">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.</span> </i>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?</li>
<li><span style="color: blue;"><i>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.</i></span> Really? In that case you would think most of the male population would be walking around blind!</li>
<li><span style="color: blue;"><i>A man is guilty of adultery if he marries a divorced woman. A woman is guilty of adultery if a man divorces his wife.</i></span>
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.</li>
<li><span style="color: blue;"><i>Do not resist an evil person.</i></span>
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.</li>
<li><span style="color: blue;"><i>If you are sued in court and lose, give them more than the judgment.</i></span> Really? Bet the ambulance chasers are Christians, LOL.</li>
<li><span style="color: blue;"><i>If someone asks for something then give it to them without question.</i></span> Cool. Mr. Buffett, kindly send me a check for 10 million dollars!</li>
<li><span style="color: blue;"><i>Love your enemies.</i></span> Really? Never felt much love for Osama Bin Laden. </li>
<li><span style="color: blue;"><i>Keep your gifts to charity private.</i></span>
Hmm, guess that also means
goodbye to the Bill Gates Foundation, the Tiger Woods Foundation, and
the Michael J. Fox Foundation.</li>
<li><span style="color: blue;"><i>Do not pray where others can see you.</i></span> Really? Then exactly why were churches built?</li>
<li><i><span style="color: blue;">Do not accumulate wealth on earth.</span> </i>Really? So what shall millions of Americans do with their IRAs?</li>
<li><i><span style="color: blue;">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.</span> </i>Really? And how many millions of children starve to death each year on the planet hoping for God to take care of them?</li>
<li><i><span style="color: blue;">Do not plan for the future.</span> </i>Really? Sorry, but Jesus you're really an idiot.</li>
<li><i><span style="color: blue;">Do not judge others.</span> </i>Really? If a gang of obvious thugs is heading your way exactly how am I supposed to survive without judging others?</li>
<li><i><span style="color: blue;">Pray for something and you will receive what you ask for.</span> </i>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.</li>
<li><span style="color: blue;"><i>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].</i></span> Oooh, now we're rolling. Guess we should kill off over half the world's population that doesn't follow Christianity.</li>
<li><span style="color: blue;"><i>Children who speak disrespectfully of their parents must be put to death [Mark 7:10]. </i><span style="color: black;">Wow, who would think Jesus would condone killing children.</span></span> </li>
<li><i><span style="color: blue;">To get into heaven you must sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor [Mark 10:21].</span> </i>Really? Maybe the Vatican can set an example and give all its net worth to the poor.</li>
<li><i><span style="color: blue;">Jesus says that slaves must obey orders from the master or face severe punishment [Luke 12:47].</span> </i>Another example of outdated morality in the Bible.</li>
<li><span style="color: blue;"><i>You can not be a disciple of Jesus unless you hate your father, mother, wife and children [Luke 14:26].</i></span> Wow, what a monster.</li>
<li><i><span style="color: blue;">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].</span> </i>This passage served as impetus for the killings during the Inquisition.</li>
</ul>
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!Leetchy2http://www.blogger.com/profile/04112124250312960974noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5118450761920611527.post-33719277959324627352014-05-23T21:08:00.000-07:002014-05-23T21:08:06.711-07:00Ray Comfort's Evolution vs. GodJust 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/<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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."<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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).<br />
<br />
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). <br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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?<br />
<br />
Scenario A<br />
- The universe formed naturally out of nothing<br />
<br />
Scenario B<br />
- God formed out of nothing<br />
- God obtained unlimited powers out of nothing<br />
- God then made the universe out of nothing<br />
<br />
Seems to me like scenario A has fewer absurd things to believe in than the supernatural solution in scenario B.Leetchy2http://www.blogger.com/profile/04112124250312960974noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5118450761920611527.post-88541898656684727472014-03-27T09:25:00.000-07:002014-05-24T22:38:56.670-07:00The Folly of FaithI wish I had a dollar for every time I've heard "Oh, she is such a great person ... she is a person of faith."<br />
<br />
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."<br />
<br />
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?<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.Leetchy2http://www.blogger.com/profile/04112124250312960974noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5118450761920611527.post-64897962533492359402014-02-14T19:04:00.001-08:002014-02-22T09:07:36.359-08:00You Can't Tuna Universe, Part 5This 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!<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
http://www.artofscientia.com/spaghetti-plot-maps-of-tropical-storms-and-hurricanes-as-art/<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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!<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.Leetchy2http://www.blogger.com/profile/04112124250312960974noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5118450761920611527.post-51253307787872303412014-02-05T18:54:00.002-08:002014-02-22T09:09:52.417-08:00Evolution vs. Creation DebateYesterday 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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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:<br />
<br />
"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."<br />
<br />
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.Leetchy2http://www.blogger.com/profile/04112124250312960974noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5118450761920611527.post-24805090631203548492014-01-25T10:02:00.000-08:002014-01-25T10:02:01.429-08:00You Can't Tuna Universe, Part 4In 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.<br />
<br />
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."<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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!!<br />
<br />
<br />Leetchy2http://www.blogger.com/profile/04112124250312960974noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5118450761920611527.post-89107306580338296682014-01-19T08:47:00.002-08:002014-01-19T08:47:55.625-08:00How Stupid is Christianity? Part 1Had 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.<br />
<br />
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."<br />
<br />
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!<br />
<br />
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.Leetchy2http://www.blogger.com/profile/04112124250312960974noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5118450761920611527.post-22366999263827720512014-01-06T21:43:00.000-08:002014-01-06T22:04:26.369-08:00Philosophy vs. Science vs. GodI wanted to take a brief pause from the Fine Tuning posts while this topic was still fresh in my head.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.Leetchy2http://www.blogger.com/profile/04112124250312960974noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5118450761920611527.post-54880347735222147512014-01-03T08:15:00.000-08:002014-01-03T11:28:36.440-08:00You Can't Tuna Universe, Part 3In 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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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:<br />
<ul>
<li>The odds of winning a blackjack hand;</li>
<li>The number of hands played;</li>
<li>The number of hands won.</li>
</ul>
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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).<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.Leetchy2http://www.blogger.com/profile/04112124250312960974noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5118450761920611527.post-6610560067428544852014-01-02T12:37:00.001-08:002014-01-03T07:49:13.774-08:00You Can't Tuna Universe, Part 2This is the second post in a series debunking the Fine Tuning Argument (FTA) used by theists to "prove" the existence of God.<br />
<br />
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!<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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?<br />
<br />
Well, the argument might go something like this:<br />
Premise 1: Rainbows are caused either by chance, physical necessity or God.<br />
Premise 2: Rainbows are not the result of chance or physics.<br />
Premise 3: Rainbows therefore are caused by God.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
In the next installment I'll shoot down premise #2.Leetchy2http://www.blogger.com/profile/04112124250312960974noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5118450761920611527.post-53531026013802871912013-12-31T20:52:00.000-08:002014-01-01T21:09:22.600-08:00You Can't Tuna Universe, Part 1One of the more popular arguments for the existence of God used by theists is that the universe is finely tuned for life, and only God could have done it.<br />
<br />
Over the past couple of decades it has become apparent to astronomers, physicists and cosmologists that if many of the constants of nature (e.g., gravitational constant, expansion rate of the universe, etc.) were just a hair's breath different, then our universe and life would not exist. This much is true. In fact, if the expansion rate of the universe was slower or faster than just 1 part in 10 to the 55th power (10^55), our universe would not exist as we know it. Astronomer Hugh Ross lists over 100 of these variables that need to be similarly fine tuned for us to exist, and he estimates the probability that all of them fall in the narrow window for life is on the order of 1 chance in 10^1050. Needless to say this number is extremely small, in fact it's almost zero.<br />
<br />
Theists have jumped on this discovery and argue the only way to overcome that low probability is if God designed our universe and that it could not happen naturally by chance because the odds are too low. This is known as the teleological argument from fine tuning, or commonly called the fine tuning argument (FTA). The formal logic for the FTA is as follows:<br />
<br />
Premise 1: The fine tuning of the physical constants of the universe is due to either physical necessity, random chance, or intelligent design (God).<br />
<br />
Premise 2: The fine tuning is not due to physical necessity or random chance.<br />
<br />
Conclusion: The fine tuning is due to intelligent design.<br />
<br />
Over the next few posts I'll be pecking away at this argument. For starters, I tend to hate these types of "negation" arguments, for the lack of a better term. These are arguments where the proponent lists several possibilities, eliminates all but one of the possibilities, and thereby concludes it must be due to the remaining choice. These are weak arguments in general because it's easy to leave out a potential contending choice from the first premise and no positive evidence is provided for the remaining option.<br />
<br />
To see how this is the case, consider the following example. Suppose you work in a bank and at the end of the day the manager discovers a shortage of $1000 cash. The manager searches all the employees and their belongings except for you. Since none of the other employees has the money the manager concludes you must have stolen the money and has you arrested. He doesn't provide any direct evidence that you took the money. No video surveillance tapes were checked to see if you stole the money. The manager didn't search you for the cash either. No, he just concluded that because nobody else had taken the money it must be you who took the loot.<br />
<br />
The FTA has the same weakness. No direct evidence is provided that God performed the fine tuning of the constants. No documents are provided exactly how God performed this fine tuning. No video tape evidence is provided discussing with God whether he fine tuned our universe for life. Rather it just eliminates the other contenders leaving God as the remaining option, and as indicated above already, it's all too easy to leave out potential contending choices out of the first premise. For example, in the bank situation, instead of concluding that one of the employees stole the money maybe the wrong change was given to a customer, maybe the manager miscounted the money, or perhaps the money was misplaced somewhere else in the bank.<br />
<br />
In the next installment of You Can't Tuna Universe I'll pick apart the premises in the FTA more specifically, and will provide an alternative possibility for the fine tuning of the constants omitted by theists. I'll also provide examples of how our weather must be controlled by God if we are to conclude that our universe was designed by God, so stay tuned!!Leetchy2http://www.blogger.com/profile/04112124250312960974noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5118450761920611527.post-33712599221188062562013-12-23T17:56:00.000-08:002014-06-07T20:56:43.712-07:00Twas the Night Before ChristmasTwas the night before Christmas, and all through the house<br />
Not a creature was stirring, not even a God.<br />
<br />
Well, that's my rendition of the poem anyway, but it leads into the topic of my next post. Over the next couple of days millions of Americans will attend church to honor the birth of Christ, sing some songs and say a few prayers. However did you ever really think about whether God can hear you pray? Let's find out.<br />
<br />
If God really does exist and let's say that he lives in heaven which is located outside our known universe, then how could he possibly hear our prayers? Even if our sound waves could travel across the universe (they don't) then it would take roughly 10,000,000,000,000,000 years for your prayer to reach God traveling at the speed of sound, and that's likely a gross understatement since the universe is constantly expanding. So you would long be dead and decayed by the time God got to hear your prayer.<br />
<br />
If it's argued that God exists closer to earth, say outside the earth's atmosphere somewhere else within our universe, well there would be another problem. There is no such thing as sound in empty space. Set off a firecracker in empty space it would not make a noise. Sound requires a physical medium (air, ground). So there is no way an entity existing outside the earth's atmosphere could hear our prayers. Even if there was a way God could hear us pray from his location outside earth, there would be so much noise from everybody else talking that our prayers would be drowned out by all the excess commotion, kind of like trying to listen to someone talk when a loud band is playing at a bar and others are singing.<br />
<br />
If it's argued that God is here on earth all around us, well I'm not buying that either. We know the weight of the earth's atmosphere and its composition precisely. God = energy and energy = mass (remember Einstein's equation E = M * C^2). If God was all around us then there would be excess mass in our atmosphere that is unaccounted for. However, that is not the case since we can account for every micro-gram. Therefore, God can not be all around us either. Moreover, if he was all around us here on Earth then there would be other issues like why would he let millions of innocent children starve each year, but that's another post for another time.<br />
<br />
So really, there is no physical way God can hear our prayers even if God existed. However, if it can be shown that there is power in prayer, then maybe God has a way that we just can't explain with known physics just yet. So let's see if praying really works, after all Jesus said in Matthew [21:22] that "Whatever you ask for in prayer with faith, you will receive." So let's see if Jesus is telling the truth.<br />
<br />
First we can look at scientific studies, like that performed by the Cochrane Collaboration Group, who in 2010 performed a meta-analysis of all peer-reviewed medical trials to determine the effects of prayer on people with health problems. Their results showed that praying had no effect on the death rates or recovery rates of patients who had serious medical issues. What was more shocking was the authors suggestion that no further money be spent on determining the effectiveness of prayer ever again.<br />
<br />
So where else can we look to see if prayer works. How about Professor William Lane Craig? He is one of the world's foremost Christian apologists and has probably debated in favor of the existence of God over a hundred times. What is interesting is that in all of his debates, not once did he use the power of prayer as evidence for the existence of God. If prayer really worked, he'd be all over it like a fly to honey using it to his debating advantage for sure. The fact he is silent on the subject of the prayer in his debates is telling.<br />
<br />
There is one sure way you can find out whether prayer is effective. Simply pray that none of our military troops will be killed in battle in the middle East and pray that no Christians will ever get killed again by a natural disaster like a tornado, hurricane or lightning. You know neither of those prayers will ever come true even if they were blessed by the Pope.<br />
<br />
For those who still believe the power of prayer despite the evidence against, then here's a simple challenge. If you really believe that God answers prayers, then there should be no need to carry health insurance, life insurance and homeowners insurance. Just think of how much money you can save through the power or prayer. Of course no sane person would do this because they know deep down praying has no impact on anything that happens on this planet.<br />
<br />
In summary, there's no physical way God can can hear our prayers and there's no evidence that God is answering our prayers, contrary to the words of Jesus. So I say skip the church, skip the prayers, save the time, save the donation money and don't worship a liar and a fraud, even on Christmas.Leetchy2http://www.blogger.com/profile/04112124250312960974noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5118450761920611527.post-89134885802271133422013-12-14T22:49:00.004-08:002015-01-27T17:49:19.776-08:00'Tis the SeasonWell it's the holiday season, and this December 25th over 250 million Americans will celebrate Christmas. But does anybody research why so many celebrate Christmas? Well duh, it's to celebrate the birth of Jesus of course. Yeah I get that part, and for the moment I'll suspend discussion about whether Jesus was really born on December 25th (the evidence in the Bible points otherwise). But back to the previous question, why do so many celebrate the birth of Jesus? Let's look at some popular responses more critically.<br />
<br />
<b>1) Jesus was the son of God</b>. Really? Where's the proof of that? Of course where's the proof that any God exists? There have been many impostors over the centuries claiming to be the son/daughter of God. Remember David Koresh of Waco, TX? He claimed to be the son of God and had 100+ followers, but of course nobody really believed he was the son of God (except those in the Waco compound). Joseph Smith (founder of the Mormon religion) was thought to be a prophet of God and to have been directed by an angel of God to a buried book of sacred golden plates in the 1800s; however today it's obvious he was a fraud yet there are still millions who practice Mormonism. So how do we really know the Biblical Jesus wasn't a similar crackpot who started with his own small legion of followers in Galilee, similar to what Koresh had in Waco or Smith had in Utah? The answer is we really don't know. The only "evidence" is from the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. However the Gospels weren't written by eyewitnesses or by followers of Jesus. They weren't even written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John (the true authors were anonymous). They were written 30-60 years after Jesus' death and are based upon hearsay and rumors, which allows for embellishment and fabrication of history, and was followed by centuries of likely manipulation by the Church before we get to the copies we read today. Bottom line is the Gospels are not a reliable source of historical information and there is zero credible evidence that Jesus was the son of God. See my November post on the resurrection of Jesus for more insight.<br />
<br />
<b>2) The teachings of Jesus are brilliant.</b> Really? I'm aware of all the passages which say that Jesus loves us and wants peace on earth which is all well and good, but are you aware of all the teachings of Jesus that priests don't reveal at Sunday mass? Well, here's a short list in blue font directly from Jesus's Sermon on the Mount [Matthew 5-7]:<br />
<ul>
<li><i><span style="color: blue;">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.</span> </i>Really? So if some drunk driver kills the members of my family and I curse at the drunk I'm the one that goes to hell?</li>
<li><span style="color: blue;"><i>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.</i></span> Really? In that case you would think most of the male population would be walking around blind!</li>
<li><span style="color: blue;"><i>A man is guilty of adultery if he marries a divorced woman. A woman is guilty of adultery if a man divorces his wife.</i></span> 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.</li>
<li><span style="color: blue;"><i>Do not resist an evil person.</i></span> 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.</li>
<li><span style="color: blue;"><i>If you are sued in court and lose, give them more than the judgment.</i></span> Really? Bet the ambulance chasers are Christians, LOL.</li>
<li><span style="color: blue;"><i>If someone asks for something then give it to them without question.</i></span> Cool. Mr. Buffett, kindly send me a check for 10 million dollars!</li>
<li><span style="color: blue;"><i>Love your enemies.</i></span> Really? Never felt much love for Osama Bin Laden. </li>
<li><span style="color: blue;"><i>Keep your gifts to charity private.</i></span> Hmm, the IRS requests otherwise on Schedule A. Guess that also means goodbye to the Bill Gates Foundation, the Tiger Woods Foundation, and the Michael J. Fox Foundation.</li>
<li><span style="color: blue;"><i>Do not pray where others can see you.</i></span> Really? Then exactly why were churches built?</li>
<li><i><span style="color: blue;">Do not accumulate wealth on earth.</span> </i>Really? So what shall millions of Americans do with their IRAs?</li>
<li><i><span style="color: blue;">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.</span> </i>Really? And how many millions of children starve to death each year on the planet?</li>
<li><i><span style="color: blue;">Do not plan for the future.</span> </i>Really? Sorry, but Jesus you're really an idiot.</li>
<li><i><span style="color: blue;">Do not judge others.</span> </i>Really? If a gang of obvious thugs is heading your way exactly how am I supposed to survive without judging others?</li>
<li><i><span style="color: blue;">Pray for something and you will receive what you ask for.</span> </i>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.</li>
</ul>
We're just getting started. Let's see what else Jesus said in the Gospels.<br />
<ul>
<li><span style="color: blue;"><i>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].</i></span> Oooh, now we're rolling. Guess we should kill off over half the world's population that doesn't follow Christianity.</li>
<li><span style="color: blue;"><i>Children who speak disrespectfully of their parents must be put to death [Mark 7:10]. </i><span style="color: black;">Wow, who would think Jesus would condone killing children.</span></span> </li>
<li> <i><span style="color: blue;">To get into heaven you must sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor [Mark 10:21].</span> </i>Really? Maybe the Vatican can set an example and give all its net worth to the poor.</li>
<li><i><span style="color: blue;">Jesus says that slaves must obey orders from the master or face severe punishment [Luke 12:47].</span> </i>Another example of outdated morality in the Bible.</li>
<li><span style="color: blue;"><i>You can not be a disciple of Jesus unless you hate your father, mother, wife and children [Luke 14:26].</i></span> Wow, what a monster.</li>
<li><i><span style="color: blue;">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].</span> </i>This passage served as impetus for the killings during the Inquisition.</li>
</ul>
OK, guess my point has been made here. Jesus was a freak. Nobody in their right minds would follow the teachings and words of Jesus. Maybe this is why the Romans crucified Jesus, LOL.<br />
<br />
<b>3) Jesus died for our sins.</b><br />
This one is the most sickening of all. Why should one person die to forgive another of their sins? I can not imagine a more stupid base for a religion than that. Does that mean I now have a free pass to commit as many sins as I want? Crazy. Why not just forgive someone's sins if they confess and the are sincere? Why does there have to be a killing too? What would you think of two parents if they killed their only son just to forgive their daughter of her sins? You would think the parents were nuts and a jury would probably sentence them to life in prison. See the contradiction? So you see this whole notion of blood sacrifice for atonement of sin is a pretty ridiculous concept. Moreover, I would rather spend my time worshiping our fallen military, who really made the ultimate sacrifice by giving up their lives so that we can enjoy the freedoms we have today.<br />
<b><br /></b>
Therefore upon deeper analysis I fail to see any compelling reason to worship the birth of Jesus.Leetchy2http://www.blogger.com/profile/04112124250312960974noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5118450761920611527.post-71892310033925752002013-12-10T17:18:00.001-08:002014-06-10T07:39:00.600-07:00The Problem of MiraclesOne reason why the Bible is just not believable (besides all the blatant scientific errors it contains) is due to the endless number of miracle stories it says happened. Let me explain further with an analogy.<br />
<br />
Suppose I was testifying in a courtroom murder trial as an eye-witness and I said that I saw the defendant shoot the victim. Now without knowing any other information you might have no reason to discard my account of the event and if you were on the jury you may even vote to convict the defendant based in part on my testimony.<br />
<br />
However, let's say in the cross-examination the defense attorney asked me what I was doing earlier that morning before the murder. Suppose my response was "I went for a jog through the trail in the woods and I encountered a UFO hovering over a lake, and was then promptly abducted by the craft whereupon they did a brain transplant and teleported me back to earth with x-ray vision whereupon I could see through the walls of the apartment building that the defendant murdered the victim." Well, in that case you would probably ignore my testimony that I saw the defendant shot the victim. Why? Because my credibility was destroyed by the UFO miracle story.<br />
<br />
So how does this relate to the Bible? Well, the Bible is littered with similar miracle stories that are totally unbelievable. What are some of these stories? Here's a brief list (believe me, there are many more ... really too many to list here in this blog):<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>Virgin Birth [Matthew 1:18-25]. Virgin births are not observed in humans and if they were the product would likely be another female, not a male.</li>
<li>Daniel & the Lion [Daniel 6]. Daniel was thrown in a lion's den and survived because God sent angels to shut the mouths of the lions.</li>
<li>Jonah & the Fish [Jonah 1:2]. Jonah spent 3 days and nights in the belly of a whale after being eaten, but then prayed to God and the fish spit Jonah back on the shore alive.</li>
<li>David & Goliath [1Samuel 17]. A young early teen David killed a 9' 9" giant in Goliath by slinging a rock at him.</li>
<li>Samson & Delilah [Judges 16]. Samson pressed the pillars of a temple and the temple collapsed killing several thousand enemy Philistines.</li>
<li>Joshua takes Jericho [Joshua 6]. The walls surrounding the town of Jericho collapsed when the priests in the Israelite army sounded a long blast on their horns.</li>
<li>Parting the Red Sea [Exodus 14]. God parted a 1600 foot deep sea by blowing an east wind allowing Israelites to escape the Pharaoh's army.</li>
<li>Stopping Earth's Rotation [Joshua 10:12-14]. The sun halted in the sky for an entire day despite the physics against that. </li>
<li>Talking animals [Genesis 3:1-5, Numbers 22:28-30]. Snakes and donkeys can talk in words!</li>
<li>Life Span [Genesis 5]. Humans routinely lived over 900 years.</li>
<li>Noah's Ark [Genesis 6]. Noah gets tens of thousands of animals and hundreds of thousands of insects to board an arc and spends over a year at sea providing them food and disposing their waste.</li>
<li>Resurrections. Too many to list. Jesus wasn't the only resurrection. Matthew 27:50-53 describes how there was an earthquake and the bodies of many saints who were dead came back to life and entered the holy city.</li>
</ul>
To me these ridiculous stories destroy the credibility of the Bible, just like a story about a UFO abduction on the witness stand would destroy my eyewitness testimony. So when the Bible says that a God created the universe and life on earth, why should I believe it? Bottom line is the Bible appears to be a book written by clueless imaginative human story-tellers rather than a sacred book representing the word of a real existing God.<br />
<br />
Something to think about before putting money in the collection bin at church.Leetchy2http://www.blogger.com/profile/04112124250312960974noreply@blogger.com0