More Incredible Vision Functions
A few years ago we reported on fascinating eye movement research. If you stare at a horizontal line first, then a circle appears stretched out, like an ellipse. This simple fact was ingeniously used in an experiment to study how signals from the eye are processed. Our eyes move several times per second. If we were aware of what our eyes were seeing we’d have difficulty making sense of such rapid movements. As it is we don’t sense such movements, and one theory held that the signal processing in our vision system deleted certain scenes to keep the image steady in our brains. But when human subjects were shown a horizontal line too quickly to be sensed, they nonetheless then saw a circle as an ellipse. In other words, even those scenes of which we are not aware have an effect on the scenes that we do see. Now an equally ingenious and complicated experiment helps to explain tiny eye movements of which we are barely aware.When you are trying to fix your gaze on an object your eyes will occasionally, and seemingly without reason, make rapid, tiny movements away, temporarily disrupting your focus and concentration. Evolutionists long thought that these so-called microsaccades were nothing more than useless, random twitches. But the new research found that just prior to a microsaccade our visual perception is altered in a very specific, repeatable manner. Specifically, objects in the center of our vision appear more toward the periphery, and objects in the periphery appear more toward the center. In a complicated way this spatial compression works together with the microsaccade in allowing us to maintain our situational awareness while otherwise concentrating and focusing on one object.
Once again science finds that our vision system is even more complex than we thought, and the evolutionary narrative, that a few mutations created and modified a few genes from which arose fancy new vision capabilities, has become that much more unlikely. How could microsaccades and the spatial compression logic and wiring have evolved to all work together?
Evolutionists call this the fallacy of incredulity. Complex organs and structures, they say, are not problems for evolution just because we cannot explain how they could have evolved. These are not problems, evolutionists explain, because they will be resolved by future research. But how do we know that? So while evolution is a fact, there nonetheless are myriad biological designs which evolution cannot explain.
"Once again science finds that our vision system is even more complex than we thought, and the evolutionary narrative, that a few mutations created and modified a few genes from which arose fancy new vision capabilities, has become that much more unlikely. "
ReplyDeleteIf macro evolution is already infinitely unlikely, finding something that is "that much more unlikely" isn't much of a argument. Surely there is a better way of stating just how failed ToE is.
Here is a link to a few videos for the layperson. Be warned, it has a lot of God and biblical creation threaded throughout.
Deletehttp://www.answersingenesis.org/media/video/ondemand/hearing-ear-seeing-eye/ear-eye
CH: Once again science finds that our vision system is even more complex than we thought, and the evolutionary narrative, that a few mutations created and modified a few genes from which arose fancy new vision capabilities, has become that much more unlikely.
ReplyDeleteProbability is only a useful criticism if you know all the possible outcomes. If by "unlikely", you mean more improbable, then how did you go about calculating that probability? Please be specific.
CH: How could microsaccades and the spatial compression logic and wiring have evolved to all work together?
I've already addressed this in a comment in the previous thread, which you have yet to actually criticize in any productive way.
CH: Evolutionists call this the fallacy of incredulity.
Given that probability is an invalid criticism unless you know all the options, then what else are we supposed to conclude? Are you saying you do know all the options? If so, how?
Here's a hint: Our knowledge of all the options would fall under an explanation for the growth of human knowledge.
CH: Complex organs and structures, they say, are not problems for evolution just because we cannot explain how they could have evolved.
We? You seem to have confused a theological belief that there can be no explanation for the work of a inexplicable designer that exists in an inexplicable realm, with the idea that an explanation cannot and has not been provided.
Cornelius's logic:
ReplyDeleteToday a new strain of virus was discovered. This makes Germ Theory LESS LIKELY TO BE TRUE.
#sciencefail
Ritchie
ReplyDeleteCornelius's logic:
Today a new strain of virus was discovered. This makes Germ Theory LESS LIKELY TO BE TRUE.
#sciencefail
Cornelius's real logic:
1. Lie for Jesus
2. Collect paycheck from the Disco Tooters.
#ethicsfail
The above post is published from our resident 12 year old antagonist. To confirm this assessment one only has to look to his former posts, his tone, his limited vocabulary in insults and the sheer quantity of posts in almost all blog posts that demonstrate he has copious amounts of free time.
DeleteOn more moderated blogs he would be classified as a troll.
Many atheists and oponents of ID have had and do have worthwhile things to say but this poster is so seldom among them that his posts are routinely ignored by the author of this blog and many of its participants.
You may safely skip his posts as we often do in responding to him
LOL! The above post is from Eliarjah2012, our resident cowardly, ignorant YEC whiner. He can't deal with the scientific evidence that gets presented and those tough technical questions he can't answer. His 'solution' is to demand that those who make him look like a clueless idiot be banned.
DeleteWhat he hasn't realized is that it's his own ignorance and cowardice (including "well-poisining") that make him look like a clueless idiot. But of course it's easier to blame the messenger.
To any new reader
DeleteThe above post is published from our resident 12 year old antagonist. To confirm this assessment one only has to look to his former posts, his tone, his limited vocabulary in insults and the sheer quantity of posts in almost all blog posts that demonstrate he has copious amounts of free time.
On more moderated blogs he would be classified as a troll.
Many atheists and oponents of ID have had and do have worthwhile things to say but this poster is so seldom among them that his posts are routinely ignored by the author of this blog and many of its participants.
You may safely skip his posts as we often do in responding to him
To any new reader
DeleteThe above post is from Eliarjah2012, our resident cowardly, ignorant YEC whiner. He can't deal with the scientific evidence that gets presented and those tough technical questions he can't answer. His 'solution' is to demand that those who make him look like a clueless idiot be banned.
What he hasn't realized is that it's his own ignorance and cowardice (including "well-poisoning") that make him look like a clueless idiot. But of course it's easier to blame the messenger.
Oh, for goodness' sake, Cornelius!
ReplyDelete"Evolutionists long thought that these so-called microsaccades were nothing more than useless, random twitches. "
No we blooming well didn't! Cite me a single "evolutionist" who "long thought" any such thing!
And you don't even have the description correct! Microsaccades are not "occasional" at all - they happen many times per second. Indeed saccades are extremely frequent. The way that the visual system keeps the scene world coordinates, not retinotopic coordinates is fascinating, as is the whole mechanism by which we perceive a stable visual scene from a series of disconnected "snapshots" in which only a few degrees of visual angle are actually recorded in full colour and fine detail (i.e. by the fovea).
I do research on this stuff! And nowhere in my literature reviews have I ever come across any "evolutionist" thinking that microsaccades served no function, although clearly it took a while before people began to understand the role they play.
Nor have a met a vision scientist who has any problem with the idea that the system evolved. Indeed, it makes much more sense to consider the evolution of a visual system as one bound from the beginning with control of action.
Try reading Active Vision by Findlay and Gilchrist.
Elizabeth:
DeleteI do research on this stuff! And nowhere in my literature reviews have I ever come across any "evolutionist" thinking that microsaccades served no function
That's strange since this is hardly controversial. Are you sure you actually "do research on this stuff!"?
Even the press release noted that "It was long thought that microsaccades were nothing but random, inconsequential tics."
http://www.uni-tuebingen.de/en/news/press-releases/newsfullview-pressemitteilungen/article/ueber-das-sehen-hinaus.html
If you would like to learn more about this stuff you can see Kowler and Steinman's influential letter where they said "Small saccades serve no useful purpose."
http://www1.psych.purdue.edu/~zpizlo/rsteinma/Bob-FOR%20CV/Kolwer%20&%20Steinman%201980%20reply%20to%20Ditchburn.pdf
Nor have a met a vision scientist who has any problem with the idea that the system evolved. Indeed, it makes much more sense to consider the evolution of a visual system as one bound from the beginning with control of action.
Well of course. We all know things like eyes spontaneously arise. That's just common sense.
A press release is not evidential support for a claim, Cornelius, as you surely know.
DeleteI don't know who wrote it, but it is not correct, as press releases often aren't. They are usually written by the university press office, and, unfortunately, often only cursorily checked by the author of the paper.
Who, of course, makes no such claim. As it happens, not only do I work in this field, this particular area of study is one that I know very well, namely the field of peri-saccadic visual distortion. I've actually performed and supervised a number of experiments extremely similar in design to that reported by Hafed. A paper reporting some of that research is here
Essentially, what Hafed is saying is that the mechanism that has been proposed also applies (as indeed my own model would predict) to microsaccades.
But in any case, there is a huge literature on the function of microsaccades - when I first learned about them (many decades ago) the text book explanation was that they prevented "retinal fading". This is probably true. That they serve an additional function in planning saccades and in maintaining spatial constancy across saccades is very interesting, but would be a direct prediction from the work cited by Hafed (Ross et al, again in the 1990s).
And we've known since the work of Colby and Duhamel in the 90s that the receptive fields of neurons in the parietal cortex shift in advance of a saccade, probably to maintain spatial constancy, but also probably as part of the process by which saccades are planned.
Moreover paper you cite (the letter) itself is evidence of the assumption made prior to that letter by evolutionists that microsaccades had a purpose - Kowler and Steinman actually say so, explicitly. They however, disagreed.
So yes, it would be highly "controversial" to assert that "evolutionists" (why "evolutionists"?) had "long thought" that microsaccades were useless, unless it was just something thrown out by a press officer.
And yes, it appears that visual systems do arise very readily, so much so that there are several independent lineages.
Also, those tiny eye movements are not "bothersome" at all. It was always rather an important clue that something interesting was going on - why didn't they normally make the visual scene jiggle about?
ReplyDeleteOh for goodness sake ELizabeth! Try using this search engine called Google and enter in
ReplyDeletesaccades useful purpose
See anything? and yes there are appeals to evolutionary theory in there. In your zest to call Cornelius out for lying you have made a fool of yourself.
Less heat more light
I didn't say Cornelius was lying - I asked him to support his claim.
DeleteWhich was that "Evolutionists long thought that these so-called microsaccades were nothing more than useless, random twitches."
The one paper that your search terms elicit turns out to be a paper, published in 1979 by a couple of scientists who clearly had not thought that, even then, as they had spent "a dozen years" attempting to find a function for them. So in 1979, it hadn't been "long thought" that they lacked a function. And they were only discovered in the fifties.
And in fact, vision scientists have, on the contrary, tended to assume that something complex must be going on (whether the microsaccades serve a function or not) because we do not experience "camera shake" despite the fact that microsaccades are going on all the time.
To pitch this paper as a major new discovery that falsifies some "evolutionist" assumption is just plain ridiculous. You could just as easily take any discovery by any scientists that is billed as "surprising" and say that it falsifies some long-held assumption by "evolutionists".
In fact we have known for quite a while that neurons in monkey LIP change their receptive fields in anticipation of a saccade (work by Duhamel and Colby in the 1990s), so that they become sensitive to regions of the visual field that will come into their "normal" receptive field. In other words, there is closecoupling between the processes that generate a saccadic eye movement and the processes that convert the image from retinotopic coordinates to head, body and world coordinates. It's fascinating.
But you'd need to do more than a quick google to get the full experience.
"I didn't say Cornelius was lying - I asked him to support his claim."
Deletemust all Darwinists be so downright dishonest? you not only implied it you directly stated that
"No we blooming well didn't!"
When it WAS a position held by some. You then went on as if not a single paper could be found
"Cite me a single "evolutionist" who "long thought" any such thing!"
You now come back as if all is well with that assessment pretending as if its no significant issue. You didn't just miss some isolated obscure paper like you and thorton are pretending but one that is cited and referenced in MULTIPLE other papers.
We can all be wrong. Thats not even the issue. the issue is you were so quick in typical Darwinist fashion to imply a fabrication on an ID proponents part that you over stated your case and now having been caught in the over statement instead of just being honest and admitting to your error are instead trying to weasel out of it.
Its OK Elizabeth. It won't physically hurt (I don't think). You can do this. I have confidence in you. You can admit to an Idist that you were wrong. Darwin will not roll over in his grave. Corpses have no yet evolved the capability - yet. Tomorrow you can go back to claiming Idist never have a good point and the world will be like a bowl of cherios again.
"To pitch this paper as a major new discovery that falsifies some "evolutionist" assumption is just plain ridiculous."
BUt it was an assumption of some evolutionsits and it does falsify THEIR assumption.
Spin away. Now if you wish to say that yes there were those but that was long ago discredited then you would have done so. Instead you implied there never was any such assumption which is patently false.
So all you have is how it was "pitched" as an issue and we have you directly claiming a fact false that was not even close to being so.
Objectivity would indicate you have more to answer for than Cornelius regardless.
"But you'd need to do more than a quick google to get the full experience"
DeleteThe embarassing point is that a quick Google was all it would have taken you to become informed instead of pounding away on your keyboard claiming that no such position existed.
Eliarjah2012 the Godbotherer, long on blustering rhetoric but totally devoid of integrity.
DeleteKeep fighting the good fight for Jeebus there Elijah. Don't let your pure heart be contaminated with any of that evil scientific knowledge.
Eliarjah2012
DeleteThe embarassing point is that a quick Google was all it would have taken you to become informed instead of pounding away on your keyboard claiming that no such position existed.
LOL! No asshat, the embarrassing point for you is you internet Creationist "scientists" can't become informed on complicated technical subjects with a 30 second bit of Google reading. That's why you look so dumb every time you open your mouth on evolutionary theory.
You're just another Creationist poster boy for Dunning-Kruger.
Elijah:
DeleteRead what I wrote, not what you think I wrote.
Also, read what Cornelius wrote, not what you think he wrote.
And I'm still waiting to see any evidence that "evolutionists" "long thought" that microsaccades were useless.
DeleteI don't say there isn't any. I just want to see evidence that there is. To my knowledge, and it is substantial, it is not an assumption that has been "long held". And while all biology has evolutionary implications, and while evolution is the framework in which we understand biology, the usefulness or otherwise of microsaccades is not an a priori prediction of any evolutionary theory that I am aware of.
Cornelius seems to have this habit of picking up any headline news story and spinning it as a falsification of what "evolutionists" have "long-thought".
Which even if true (and, as I say, I have yet to see any evidence that it is true, and it goes completely against my own fairly extensive knowledge of the field) is extremely misleading, because while it is true that the overwhelming majority of biologists are "evolutionists" (I wonder why?), evolutionary theory makes no prediction one way or another about the usefulness of microsaccades.
They might have been selected for some function or they might simply be epiphenomenal, and compensated for by the evolution of neural circuitry that effectively discounts them.
But what we do know, contrary to Cornelius' headline, is that they are not "bothersome". This is itself evidence that something complex and interesting is going on in the brain circuitry that handles them.
So looks like so far we have:
DeleteTwo scientists, who may have been "evolutionists" found evidence, in 1979, that, contrary to their earlier conjectures, microsaccades had no function.
No evidence yet that "evolutionists" in general, or indeed any evolutionists "long thought" that microsaccades had no function.
Of course Elizabeth. It was me writing what I thought you wrote and not you writing
Delete"No we blooming well didn't! Cite me a single "evolutionist" who "long thought" any such thing!
You can spin. dance, shale and shimmy . Its right there and the message is obvious. If you wish to lie about it some more feel free but lying it is.
Elijah: have you read the paper you found a reference to?
DeleteThis is the standard ploy with you elizabeth. Caught in your own mess you think you can wiggle out by implying someone else is uninformed.
DeleteIt works when appealing to your own choir but particularly in this case it will not change what you wrote and it will most definitely not work to erase the fact that his has been contradicted by the evidence
"No we blooming well didn't! Cite me a single "evolutionist" who "long thought" any such thing!"
Go ahead and spin again.
Eliarjah2012
DeleteThis is the standard ploy with you elizabeth.
LOL! Gee, what a sneaky 'ploy'. Ask you if you actually bothered to read the paper before shooting your mouth off about it. Of course the answer is a resounding NO. No sense reading about the science you don't have the background or the intelligence to understand, is there?
So I take it you didn't read the paper, Elijah.
DeleteOK.
I am still waiting for evidence that "evolutionists" (or even one) "long thought" that microsaccades were useless. All I've found so far is evidence that at one time "evolutionists" assumed they must have a purpose.
But at no time that I am aware of did they think that the brain didn't have a complex circuitry for handling them, because that is obvious from the fact that we don't suffer from "camera shake".
Nor do we, as Cornelius says, find them "bothersome", nor do they "temporarily disrupt... your focus and concentration."
Cornelius seems unaware that they occur several times a second, as do full saccades.
Nor does he seem to aware that for many years they have been assumed to counteract "retinal fading".
Which is probably correct. However, this new research suggest an additional function, which makes sense in the light of the work by Duhamel and Colby in the 1990s.
"So I take it you didn't read the paper, Elijah.
DeleteConsidering all you have quoted from the paper is what my link already had while dishonestly claiming that all we had looked at was the title we don't even know if you have read it.
But unlike you ELizabeth I can tell the truth. I was unable to find more than the reply. SO I will now wait with bated breath as to how the rest of the paper goes into the details that make this
"No we blooming well didn't! Cite me a single "evolutionist" who "long thought" any such thing!"
into an accurate representation of the truth and how it goes into great detail regarding your other lie of me only reading the title and nothing more (while copy and pasting the very opening paragraph that was already at my link as some kind of deeper revelation)
Wow me some more with your lying skills
"All I've found so far is evidence that at one time "evolutionists" assumed they must have a purpose."
Yes liz "all" you could find was that. Nothing contradicting what you implied when saying No we blooming didn't? You are wowing me already
"LOL! Gee, what a sneaky 'ploy'. Ask you if you actually bothered to read the paper before shooting your mouth off about it."
DeleteOnly child could miss so many points in such a short paragraph. Impressive ;)
A) Cornelius point is hardly limited to a single paper or for that matter limited to just papers. We referenced three different sources between us. Cornelius even referenced the press release itself. Liz only begs that it is in error also.
B) Liz did nothing but copy and paste from our previously supplied source and drew a number of conclusion FROM THE paragraph itself so the claim that we knew only the titles or could understand the points she made from the opening paragraph are as bogus as any of yur other posts - which is pretty bad
C) my issue now has nothing to do with Liz being wrong but has everything to do with failing to admit when she is. Will the paper shed light on that? Do tell? lol
Trot out ant detail you wish it will not make this an accurate representation of the truth
""No we blooming well didn't! Cite me a single "evolutionist" who "long thought" any such thing!""
Sorry T.
LOL! You ignorant Fundies are so funny when you try to play at science!
DeleteStick to waving your hands and screaming LIAR!!! Elijah2012. It's what you do best. It's all you do here.
Eliarjah2012
ReplyDeleteOh for goodness sake ELizabeth! Try using this search engine called Google and enter in
saccades useful purpose
See anything?
LOL! Try using the academic search engine called Google Scholar and enter in saccades useful purpose.
Goolge Scholar: saccades useful purpose
You get over 16,000 hits from the primary scientific literature.
Absolutely hilarious that a pig-ignorant Creationist is arrogant enough to give a condescending lecture to a professional researcher in the field. Gotta love those clueless Godbotherers!
LOL even more hilarity
DeleteThe resident 12 year old insulter in a desperate attempt to save his idol points to a search which if he even looked at would CONFIRM that there WERE evolutionists that claimed no purpose in DIRECT contradiction of Liz's
"Cite me a single "evolutionist" who "long thought" any such thing!"
Keep em coming T. Its great when the facts blow up in your face and we can see you trying to spin like crazy to make ignorance into advanced knowledge
Bigger LOL!
DeletePig-ignorant Creationist Eliarjah2012 does a quick search, finds a single 33 year old opinion piece (not a published study) that disputes microsaccades serve a function, ignores the other thousands of studies published since then that show the opinion wrong.
Gotta love it when the IDiot Godbotherers try to argue science!
"Pig-ignorant Creationist Eliarjah2012 does a quick search, finds a single 33 year old opinion piece (not a published study) "
Deleteone? (biggest LOL) Opinion piece? like some obscure study no one refers to -
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/2954815.htm
yeah right it was only cornelius that claimed it was a held belief.
"NARRATION
These tiny motions are called microsaccades which means little jumps. Since microsaccades were first discovered a century ago, their role has been hotly debated. In the 80's scientists even concluded they were useless.
Dr Stephen Macknik
They actually published a paper with that as the title: 'Small saccades serve no useful purpose'. Well it was a bit premature I think to come to that conclusion
NOt only is the paper significant it is cited in multiple papers after it so it was hardly some obscure reference.
But anyway its nice to see you confirming that Liz was wrong when she said so emphatically
"No we blooming well didn't! Cite me a single "evolutionist" who "long thought" any such thing!"
Good stuff T but I am hoping Elizabeth will show more honesty than you are capable of and admit she overspoke. like I said
less heat and more light.
Perfect example of how your side over uses the liar claim. This time the facts were clear and bit you in the rear.
Eliarjah2012
DeleteBut anyway its nice to see you confirming that Liz was wrong when she said so emphatically
"No we blooming well didn't! Cite me a single "evolutionist" who "long thought" any such thing!"
if you weren't so busy lying for Jesus you'd cite Dr. Liddle correctly:
Dr. Liddle: "nowhere in my literature reviews have I ever come across any "evolutionist" thinking that microsaccades served no function"
So Dr. Liddle has never come across your single 30+ year old reference. Big whoop. Doesn't change the fact that CH's OP is deliberately deceptive and misleading about science's actual understanding of microsaccades.
You're always the first to yell "liar", but every time it's you who gets caught lying. Typical Creationist.
The paper being referenced appears to be this one:
DeleteE. Kowler, R.M. Steinman Small saccades serve no useful purpose: Reply to a letter by R.W. Ditchburn Vision Research, 20 (1980), pp. 273–276
Unless somebody has a copy of that paper and the letter to which it is replying, all we actually have is the title.
All Dr Liddle claimed was: ""nowhere in my literature reviews have I ever come across any "evolutionist" thinking that microsaccades served no function".
Even if she had made the stronger claim that that no evolutionist had ever thought that microsaccades served no useful purpose, rather than the lesser one that she had never come across such a claim in her literature reviews, the title of that paper alone is nowhere near sufficient to refute it.
I got access to it.
DeleteThe opening paragraph reads:
"Although it is now almost thirty years since the first accurate measurements of miniature fixational eye movements (Ratliff and Riggs, 1950; Ditchburn, 1955) it is still possible to debate the functional properties of the different types of miniature eye movements. Although we, like Ditchbum, have faith that organisms develop capacities that are in some way useful to them, we believe that finding a functionally significant role for the microsaccade presents a formidable challenge. We have been attempting to do this experimentally for more than a dozen years. The overwhelming body of evidence, from our laboratory and elsewhere, indicates that microsaccades contribute nothing of consequence to either oculomotor control or vision. "
In other words far from thinking that microsaccades were "useless" in 1979, there was a probably naive Darwinian assumption that they must serve some purpose (this was before the days when drift was recognised as having an important effect on allele frequencies, and "natural selection" was regarded as much more important). The gist of the Kowler and Steinmann paper is that contrary to "evolutionist" expectations, they couldn't find a function even after a dozen years of looking.
In other words, ironically, this very old paper actually demonstrates just how wrong Cornelius is - "evolutionists" apparently "long thought" (at least for the first couple of decades of investigation into microsaccades" that they must have some function (because that's how Darwinian evolution works, right?). Then Kowler and Steinmann said they couldn't find any.
Now it turns out that those funny old sixties "evolutionists" were right after all!
heh.
All of which is irrelevant, because we a) now know much more about drift (so do not expect to see a function for all evolved features) and b) in any case, we know that something complex must be going on in the way the brain handles microsaccades, because they DON'T disrupt our vision (and if our eyes were simply cameras, they would).
So Cornelius is even wronger (thanks to Elijah's googling) than even I thought.
It really does pay to actually read the research literature, not just google titles.
ELizabeth your consummate lying knowns no end particular when you are trying to spin out of being proven wrong. Let us dissect your most recent lies.
Delete1) Cornelius did not rely on my googling. He had a completely different reference which you are trying desperately to avoid that proves the viewpoint is hardly just Cornelius's. It was the news release right here
http://www.uni-tuebingen.de/en/news/press-releases/newsfullview-pressemitteilungen/article/ueber-das-sehen-hinaus.html
EXACT QUOTE
"It WAS LONG THOUGHT that microsaccades were nothing but random, inconsequential tics, but Hafed wondered whether the mere unconscious preparation to generate these tiny eye movements can alter visual perception and effectively allow you to “see” out of the corner of your eye "
oops, Not just cornelius's saying it was long thought
In fact I linked to yet another scientist in an interview that makes the same assessment
2) You try desperately to claim that long held refers to back when the paper was published but COrnelius never says that ( so much for your admonition to go by what people write not what you think they wrote). Facts are after that paper (not up to the point of the paper) and for some good time afterward it WAS believed that they had no function and as you have seen with your own eyes there were evolutionist appealing to it on the basis of evolutionary thought.
So please continue with some more lying
3) you now claim to be adding something different or more extensive to the discussion by quoting and posting the opening poaragraph stating all anyone was referring to before were titles.
another transparent and obvious lie
Anyone can scroll up and access the links that I referred to and they would see this
http://www1.psych.purdue.edu/~zpizlo/rsteinma/Bob-FOR%20CV/Kolwer%20&%20Steinman%201980%20reply%20to%20Ditchburn.pdf
which cornelius has already posted. It was not just titles as you so lyingly claim now BUT THE EXACT SAME OPENING PARAGRAPH YOU JUST QUOTED.
So you have not been caught in one lie or error but multiple lies. You've done a fine job of demonstrating Harris wrong. Morality does suffer in a darwinist mind although in fairness not quite as much in some as in others.
Rather than Cornelius being wrong its been you on almost every point and lying all the way through.
I have not lied - even if I was wrong, which I dispute, it would not make me a liar.
DeleteSure Cornelius relied on a news report for his assertion. But did he check the facts? Obviously not. Moreover "it was long thought" is not the same as "evolutionists long thought". Cornelius span a careless news quote to make some kind of point about evolution. What that point is seems little more than "evolutionists wrong again".
This just happens to be a field I am rather familiar with - it's part of my research. So I know the primary literature fairly well, and the history of the thinking around the mechanisms of saccade generation.
Cornelius clearly knows nothing of this, and even gets his headline wrong, all to make some cheap point.
And it isn't even clear what the point is. The 1979 paper you drew attention to indicates that in 1979 "evolutionists" assumed microsaccades would have function, not that they wouldn't.
But I guess I might as well keep my powder dry as you seem convinced that I am a liar.
"I have not lied - even if I was wrong, which I dispute, it would not make me a liar."
DeleteYou lied. Thats what makes you a liar, Its not about being wrong. its about not having the intellectual integrity to admit you were wrong. To this moment all you are doing is making excuses, claiming superior knowledge (as if that overrides your blunder) and spinning while the facts sits on the table that this was wrong
""No we blooming well didn't! Cite me a single "evolutionist" who "long thought" any such thing!"
Further you double dipped into your intellectual dishonesty just now. You wrote
"It really does pay to actually read the research literature, not just google titles."
implying that all that had been read before was titles when all you did was quote EXACTLY what had been referenced at the link provided.
Then having had that pointed out to you you skip over it and keep going.
So it would be fine if you had said it was a cheap point or held he was as clueless as clueless come but Elizabeth where your intellectual dishonesty comes in and in spades is your failure to admit where you have most obviously misrepresented the truth.
Spin it some more
"All Dr Liddle claimed was: ""nowhere in my literature reviews have I ever come across any "evolutionist" thinking that microsaccades served no function"."
DeleteYes Sped. Stick your proverbial head in the sand as you do on many issues to suit Darwin. This never appeared in the response
""No we blooming well didn't! Cite me a single "evolutionist" who "long thought" any such thing!"
Yes Sped - She never made a stronger claim than saying she had not seen it in her review. ROFL
You guys can Opine all you want (as you often do) that an atheist cannot be elected to president of the Unites States. With the level of intellectual dishonesty in these comments it only shows the great wisdom of the American people.
Dr. Liddle, don't mind Elijah2012. He's one of the more obnoxious ignorant Fundies to post here. Not quite as bad as Joe G, but close. He doesn't understand a single thing about evolutionary biology. Yelling LIAR!! at every person and every bit of scientific data presented seems to be his main tactic. Oh, and demanding that those who post scientific data and ask technical questions he can't answer be banned. Supposedly he's a middle aged man but he has the maturity level of a 12 year old.
DeleteLike Joe, his only value added is poking him for fun just to see his spittle-flying rants.
To any new reader
DeleteThe above post is published from our resident 12 year old antagonist. To confirm this assessment one only has to look to his former posts, his tone, his limited vocabulary in insults and the sheer quantity of posts in almost all blog posts that demonstrate he has copious amounts of free time.
On more moderated blogs he would be classified as a troll.
Many atheists and oponents of ID have had and do have worthwhile things to say but this poster is so seldom among them that his posts are routinely ignored by the author of this blog and many of its participants.
You may safely skip his posts as we often do in responding to him
To any new reader
DeleteThe above post is from Eliarjah2012, our resident cowardly, ignorant YEC whiner. He can't deal with the scientific evidence that gets presented and those tough technical questions he can't answer. His 'solution' is to demand that those who make him look like a clueless idiot be banned.
What he hasn't realized is that it's his own ignorance and cowardice (including "well-poisoning") that make him look like a clueless idiot. But of course it's easier to blame the messenger
Elijah2012 May 31, 2013 at 5:48 AM
Delete"All Dr Liddle claimed was: ""nowhere in my literature reviews have I ever come across any "evolutionist" thinking that microsaccades served no function"."
Yes Sped. Stick your proverbial head in the sand as you do on many issues to suit Darwin. This never appeared in the response
""No we blooming well didn't! Cite me a single "evolutionist" who "long thought" any such thing!"
Yes Sped - She never made a stronger claim than saying she had not seen it in her review. ROFL
The offending sentence in CH's OP reads:
Evolutionists long thought that these so-called microsaccades were nothing more than useless, random twitches.
He didn't write 'a few evolutionists' or 'some evolutionists'. What he wrote clearly implies that it had long been the prevailing view in evolutionary biology that mcrosaccades served no useful purpose.
But that's not what the paper says. To quote the opening paragraph yet again:
Although it is now almost thirty years since the first accurate measurements of miniature fixational eye movements (Ratliff and Riggs, 1950; Ditchburn, 1955) it is still possible to debate the functional properties of the different types of miniature eye movements. Although we, like Ditchbum, have faith that organisms develop capacities that are in some way useful to them, we believe that finding a functionally significant role for the microsaccade presents a formidable challenge. We have been attempting to do this experimentally for more than a dozen years. The overwhelming body of evidence, from our laboratory and elsewhere, indicates that microsaccades contribute nothing of consequence to either oculomotor control or vision.
In other words, as Dr Liddle pointed out, the default adaptationist assumption was that microsaccades serve some purpose:
...that organisms develop capacities that are in some way useful to them,...
The authors are pointing out that, after many years of research - which they would not have been doing in the first place if the long-held conclusion was that there was nothing to be found - theirs and other laboratories had not been able to find one. So the most probable conclusion after all that research was that there wasn't one:
We have been attempting to do this experimentally for more than a dozen years. The overwhelming body of evidence, from our laboratory and elsewhere, indicates that microsaccades contribute nothing of consequence to either oculomotor control or vision.
They were also right about "...finding a functionally significant role for the microsaccade presents a formidable challenge". It took over thirty years for this new research to emerge.
I'm assuming you're not challenging Dr Liddle's claim that "nowhere in my literature reviews have I ever come across any "evolutionist" thinking that microsaccades served no function" because that paper doesn't support such an allegation at all.
As for:
"No we blooming well didn't! Cite me a single "evolutionist" who "long thought" any such thing!"
That is a forceful denial of CH's misleading claim in the OP coupled with a challenge to support it. The paper cited, as we have seen, does not provide such support. The accusation of lying was ill-founded and you owe Dr Liddle an apology.
"He didn't write 'a few evolutionists' or 'some evolutionists'. What he wrote clearly implies that it had long been the prevailing view in evolutionary biology that mcrosaccades served no useful purpose.
DeleteBut that's not what the paper says."
Sped as usual you make no sense whatsoever. Cornelius does not reference that paper in his blog post. Neither does he reference it to say that it reported that it was long held at the time. Go read it again. You are fabricating. He nowhere says that back in the 1950s that was the prevailing idea. His "long held" has no reference to the paper but from the paper forward. If you did a lick or research you would see that the paper actually convinced alot of people FROM THAT POINT FORWARD that there was no function.
You are either befuddled or joining ELizabeth in her lying. The "long held" in that context would be from THAT paper onward so saying the paper does not support it is gibberish. if it started people to hold to that idea it could hardly have reported that it was already long held, try and make even a little sense.
" It took over thirty years for this new research to emerge."
exactly that is C's point. breathtaking that you cannot see the obvious.
"That is a forceful denial of CH's misleading claim in the OP coupled with a challenge to support it. The paper cited, as we have seen, does not provide such support"
We have seen that you make no sense whatsoever in appealing to the paper not reporting on what it was never claimed to have reported.
The lying is in claiming that evolutionists never claimed it then getting three different references where some did and then LYING about not being wrong about that CLEAR implication.
"The accusation of lying was ill-founded and you owe Dr Liddle an apology."
The accusation of lying has been confirmed with absolute certainty beyond ant reasonable doubt (including the rather BARE FACED lying about me only reading titles when it was my reference where the opening paragraph can be found).
You can beg all you wish. neither you or her are owed anything until you stop with all the obvious fabricating and lying.
elijah said:
Delete"If you did a lick or research you would see that the paper actually convinced alot of people FROM THAT POINT FORWARD that there was no function."
So then, all investigation regarding microsaccades stopped at that point? Oh really?
How many are "alot of people" and who were/are they exactly?
"if you weren't so busy lying for Jesus you'd cite Dr. Liddle correctly:"
ReplyDeleteYou are a liar Thorton. I cited her correctly. It was a direct quote - a copy and paste in fact. anyone can scroll up and see it word for word. I know why you are getting sloppy telling lies that are so easy to show as lies.
Whats killing you is that I am right. You know it and I know you know it. The god bothering IDiot has direct proof of a totally false claim and its KILLING you because it makes your side look bad.
"So Dr. Liddle has never come across your single 30+ year old reference. Big whoop."
Yep despite it being referenced by ton loads of other papers and even though the premise was discussed and the position had its proponents for years. Maybe take a lesson in humility and no always making accusations against ID proponents making up stuff so you both don;t make such fools of yourselves next time.
"Doesn't change the fact that CH's OP is deliberately deceptive and misleading about science's actual understanding of microsaccades."
Yeah uh- huh. Like Cornelius said that was the position of scientists today. Just add lie to lie eh Thorton? Anyway who cares what you think. You been busted on the facts. I wouldn't expect you to be honest enough to admit it. Nothing new.
Eliarjah2012
DeleteI cited her correctly.
Quote-mining isn't citing someone correctly. I understand that Creationists like you use quote-mining to lie all the time. Maybe you do it so much it happens without thinking.
Your knee-jerk defense of CH's deliberate misrepresentation might get you more Jesus points but it's just making you look even more like a clueless idiot. Especially the part where you used a 30+ year old letter to 'refute' a scientific professional in the field.
LOL I love it. We get all the old standbys and now we know how they are offered. without a drop of integrity. So pointing out Lizzie saying something was definitely not the fact and showing it was is
Delete"quote mining"
Good now we know the REAL definition. When a darwinist slips over his own words and admits to something that is embarassing to Darwinists its quote mining.
Good stuff ;) Long live quote mining.
elijah, the lengths you go to to deny evolution, bash evolutionary theory, and push your imaginary god are ridiculous. You're accusing Elizabeth of lying, for no good reason. Let's explore some 'lies' a bit, shall we?
DeleteIn corny's post he said:
"Evolutionists long thought"
For how "long" did "Evolutionists" have that "thought"? How many "Evolutionists" and which ones exactly, and how many other "Evolutionists" did not have that "thought"? How many "Evolutionists" were/are there who study the human eye? How many didn't/don't?*
"and the evolutionary narrative, that a few mutations created and modified a few genes from which arose fancy new vision capabilities, has become that much more unlikely."
The "evolutionary narrative"? cornelius is obviously asserting that ALL "Evolutionists long thought that these so-called microsaccades were nothing more than useless, random twitches.", especially since he describes it as "the evolutionary narrative". And how ignorant and dishonest is it to describe what "Evolutionists" allegedly "thought" (or currently think?) as "a few mutations created and modified a few genes from which arose fancy new vision capabilities"?
"Complex organs and structures, they say, are not problems for evolution"
"[T]hey say", eh? Yep, another unsupported claim about "they", as in ALL "Evolutionists".
"These are not problems, evolutionists explain"
And yet another unsupported, deliberate distortion (aka a lie) that is obviously meant to include ALL "evolutionists".
"So while evolution is a fact, there nonetheless are myriad biological designs which evolution cannot explain."
Hmm, I also can't think of anything that "evolution" can "explain". Last time I checked, "evolution" can't speak or write or display graphics so it would be pretty hard for "evolution" to "explain" anything. Evolutionary theory, on the other hand, which is spoken and written and graphically displayed by humans, does explain lots of things. That evolutionary theory doesn't explain absolutely everything that has ever occurred to you god pushers' complete satisfaction doesn't change the fact that evolution occurs and has done so for a VERY long time.
And speaking of "evolution is a fact" and corny's snarky comment about it, he and the rest of you thumpers would do yourselves some good by learning what "evolution" actually is and why the word "fact" is used.
And last but not least, let's take a look at some of your words, elijah:
"referenced by ton loads of other papers and even though the premise was discussed and the position had its proponents for years."
Does "referenced by" equate to automatic, full agreement? Do scientists only reference/cite letters, papers, or books that they completely agree with?
"ton loads"? How many is that, exactly?
"the premise was discussed". Well, scientists do discuss things sometimes, and sometimes they even disagree and debate. How terrible!
"the position had its proponents". Read again my paragraph above with an asterisk at the end.
One more thing, for now:
If humans are exceptional and 'specially created in God's image', and if human eyes are so "fancy", "complicated", and "complex", why do many animals have much better vision than humans, and why do so many humans have eye problems?
TWT, "If humans are exceptional and 'specially created in God's image', and if human eyes are so "fancy", "complicated", and "complex", why do many animals have much better vision than humans, and why do so many humans have eye problems?"
DeleteDo you notice your metaphysical assumption?
1. You take a very narrow view of what a creator should have done. It's the old "Darwin-Gould pillar of evolution - "God wouldn't have done it that way".
First of all human eyes are incredible. Second, where did you get the idea from that since humans are made in the image of God that everything about humans has to be "better" than other creatures? We are in the "image of God" only in a very limited way.
Check out this example of eye/hand coordination...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TANC4VI8vF4
There are many such fascinating examples on youtube of eyesite and hand/eye coordination if you search.
Some animals need night vision or the ability to see farther to catch their food. A study of the vision of Eagles is incredible.
Interestingly, Trilobites from the Cambrian have extremely complex vision. There is simply no Darwinian direct link showing gradual eyespot to Trilobite eyes in the fossil record.
Tedford the Slow
DeleteInterestingly, Trilobites from the Cambrian have extremely complex vision. There is simply no Darwinian direct link showing gradual eyespot to Trilobite eyes in the fossil record.
As with everything else, Tedford the idiot is dead wrong. Tedford is too lazy to research the literature and is content being a willfully ignorant slug.
The Trilobite Eye
Tedford the Slow. Willfully ignorant and proud of it!
"You're accusing Elizabeth of lying, for no good reason."
DeleteROFL Sorry TWT. I know this must bother you as much as thorton but not only do I have good reason I have PROVEN that ELizabeth is a liar and done so with nothing but the facts. She could have come back at any point and admitted she goofed but instead she came back lying like she never said what she said.
The fact that as a darwinist this hurts you and you want to pretend other wise matters little.
tedford said:
Delete"Do you notice your metaphysical assumption?
1. You take a very narrow view of what a creator should have done. It's the old "Darwin-Gould pillar of evolution - "God wouldn't have done it that way".
First of all human eyes are incredible. Second, where did you get the idea from that since humans are made in the image of God that everything about humans has to be "better" than other creatures? We are in the "image of God" only in a very limited way."
My questions are not based on a "metaphysical" assumption. Have you ever read the bible, or listened to a christian preacher? Aren't you a preacher? Isn't every christian a preacher?
Just for laughs, in what "limited way" are "We" specially created "in the image of God", and how do you know?
"First of all human eyes are incredible."
Compared to the eyes (vision system) of mantis shrimp, they suck.
elijah, the only thing you've proven is that you're an IDiot-creationist with the usual reading comprehension problem.
DeleteTWH
DeleteI made it a policy not to do long back and forths with people I know to be kids who characteristically do not have reading comprehension skills to make any meaningful contributions to a discussion.
Matters little to me if you care to defend a bare faced lie. In fact is pretty much expected.
Sorry.
Cornelius, I admire you so much. Thanks for what you are doing. I believe that what you do here is more important than anybody can imagine. I want to keep following your work. I think that what you are doing here is hugely underappreciated.
ReplyDeleteI have a strong suspicion that I am not alone in that opinion.
Please continue with your efforts.
Be careful your head doesn't get lodged up there while you're kissing butt so hard.
DeleteThornton, what "butt" are you "kissing" so hard? What makes you any different?
Delete"Thornton, what "butt" are you "kissing" so hard? What makes you any different?"
DeleteNever mind bprag. Thorton has had a really rough blog day what with the facts blowing up in both his and and his idol's face multiple times.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThank you bp.
DeleteMore movie related posts, the screw ball comedies seem fertile ground , Cary Grant's character as a goofy paleontologist seems tailor made.
DeleteQuoth CH:
ReplyDeleteHow could microsaccades and the spatial compression logic and wiring have evolved to all work together?
A perfectly good question, and one for which science has no detailed answer yet. That's not the same as saying we'll never have one or that there isn't one.
Evolutionists call this the fallacy of incredulity.
No, they don't. They know better than that, as I suspect you do.
The fallacy of incredulity lies in arguing, for example, that because we can't even imagine how the human visual system could have been brought about by evolutionary processes therefore it couldn't have happened that way. The weakness of the argument is the assumption is that we've already considered and discarded all possible options. But we don't know that. We don't know for certain that there are no options other than those we've already looked at. In effect, the fallacy is trying to argue that ignorance is the same as knowledge.
Complex organs and structures, they say, are not problems for evolution just because we cannot explain how they could have evolved. These are not problems, evolutionists explain, because they will be resolved by future research. But how do we know that?
We don't, not for certain. It's the good ol' Problem of Induction. But so what? Inductive science has produced pretty good results so far. No, we can't be certain it'll continue to do so in the future but we might as well continue to use it until we find it doesn't
So while evolution is a fact, there nonetheless are myriad biological designs which evolution cannot explain.
Yet. It is perfectly proper and reasonable to append the word to your assertion. Science doesn't have all the answers yet, notwithstanding the occasional egocentric individual who implies otherwise.
I'm glad to see you agree evolution is a fact, though. Some of your followers don't seem to agree.
Here's a article on Chicago style political corruption.
ReplyDeletehttp://nationalreview.com/article/349610/obamas-chicago-way-john-fund
Within science there is the "Darwin-way"... the "scientific" version of political corruption.
As a former citizen of the great state of Louisiana I take umbrage,I say sir, I take umbrage to the unfounded insinuation that any state or municipality could be more corrupt than the Pelican State.
DeleteHitting all the conservative talking points, that certainly was a tortured attempt to compare science to political corruption.You are the absolute worst at making analogies.
Global warmers also sound like Darwinists. When there is no global warming for almost two decades, it is noted as a "pause". You can't make this stuff up.
ReplyDeleteAnthropogenic climate change, or just climate change, is the more appropriate label.
DeleteWhat is it with you god zombies and your denial of climate change? Why are you so against accepting that it's happening? Is it because of your belief that humans are exceptional and 'specially created in the image of God' and are therefor incapable of causing any harm to the climate or anything else?
And is it because you thumpers believe that "We" 'exceptional' and 'special' humans are given 'dominion' over everything on Earth by 'God', so that whatever humans do is just hunky dory no matter how destructive it is?
Throughout the Bible, Dominion carries with it responsibilities to care for what one has dominion over, so everything anyone does is hunky dory.
DeleteOh and by the way, how well do atheistic countries care for the environment? How is China doing in that department? North Korea? The former Soviet Union? I'm just asking.
DeleteNat,
DeleteThroughout the Bible, Dominion carries with it responsibilities to care for what one has dominion over, so everything anyone does is hunky dory.
Hunky dory, I think that does not mean what you think it does
Can man cause harm to himself thru anthropomorphic climate change?
Is even possible?
Is the earth designed to accommodate such an occurrence, designed to mediate such a occurrence ?
Nat,
DeleteOh and by the way, how well do atheistic countries care for the environment? How is China doing in that department?
Crappy that's why we buy the stuff made there.
North Korea?
Probably too poor to make much pollution,people starving to death
The former Soviet Union?
Where corruption is in charge,pollution follows.
Most environmentalists,non theist or theist?
The gulf coast of Texas, non theist or theist?
I'm sorry. Above, where I said "hunky dory," Imenat to say "not hunky dory."
DeleteSo yes, people can affect the climate for the worse for man?
DeleteI understood TWT to be saying that the Biblical concept of Dominion means that humans can do whatever they want to the world. I was pointing out that this doesn't seem to be the case. I'mnot sure what your point is.
DeleteOh and by the way, how well do atheistic countries care for the environment? How is China doing in that department? North Korea? The former Soviet Union? I'm just asking.
DeleteI'm not sure why you are equating Communist and former-Communist countries with 'atheistic' countries. Surely a more fitting definition of an 'atheistic' country is one with the highest rates of atheism in its population and secular governments, no? In which case Scandinavia, Japan and certain Eastern European countries would rank among the top. And their record of environmental activity is pretty exemplary. They have among the highest recycling rates, vegetarianism rates and lowest carbon footprints of the first world. I'm just saying.
Sorry Nat,missed twt's slam. My point was,is it possible ,in your view,for man to even change the climate?
DeleteAlso, even China is leading the way in terms on global action against climate change.
Deletehttp://www.ecoseed.org/business/asia/16414-china-leads-global-action-against-climate-change-report
Ritchie:
DeleteDon't the Japanese still hunt whales? I would say that their history of environmental activity is mixed.
And maybe I should have said atheistic governments. The governments tend to be the ones that run set policy. Anyway, I was responding to the contention above that belief in the Bible is a license to destroy the environment. I was saying that I don;t think that is true, because atheists have done lots of bad things to the environment
nat
DeleteDon't the Japanese still hunt whales?
Don't Americans still hunt seals? And keep livestock in disgusting battery farms? Let's not get all high and mighty here.
And maybe I should have said atheistic governments. The governments tend to be the ones that run set policy.
How are Communist governments more atheistic than Scandinavian secular ones?
Anyway, I was responding to the contention above that belief in the Bible is a license to destroy the environment. I was saying that I don;t think that is true, because atheists have done lots of bad things to the environment
Well with that I have some sympathy. While certain passages on the subject are open to interpretation on the subject, I believe I know many CHristians who do care a great deal for the environment.
Nevertheless, it is an interesting correlation that the far right Republicans tend to be fiercely religious and strongly oppose the climate change movement (among other right-wing political stances). I don't actually see the political far right and Christianity as natural bedfellows necessarily - it is just an interesting quirk of American politics.
TWT, I'm not denying climate change in general. That is the very nature of climate. It has been changing since the earth was created. There have been great and little global climate changes throughout history. The only opposition to AGW is its corrupt science, including the billions it siphons off that could have been used to tackle real problems. Apparently you like making Al Gore rich. It's a hoax TWT to make a few people wealthy. Ironically it is the AGW's that have this sense of dominion that their carbon credits and such can actually change the future of the climate. The bible certainly does not make any such claim that "whatever humans do is just hunky dory". In fact, the exact opposite. A case could be made that since the Bible predicts that the earth will be destroyed with fire that AGW is the beginning of that.
ReplyDeleteMy problem with it is the junk science. That's it. ALL AGW predictions for the year 2013 were wrong... most were very wrong.
But, AGW's, are like Darwinists in that no matter what happens, it is evidence for their case. So, they predict that kids will grow up not seeing snow. But, then when we get late seasonaly heavy snows in many parts of the world, that is evidence for them too. Tornado's can be at nearly an all time minimum, but when a tornado does hit, congressmen get out their whiteboards and blame it on AGW. It's silliness.
Darwinists have the "missing link" sensations and AGW's have their storms. Silly science.
You don't get out much, do you?
DeleteTWT:
ReplyDeleteI remember when the climatologist talked about acid rain all the time. Acid rain was killing all the trees and frogs. What happened with that? I still see trees out my window. Then the big thing was ozone layer depletion. The llamas were all going blind and we where all going to die from skin cancer caused by UV radiation. It seems that every time the Chicken Littles say the atmosphere is falling, it isn't. I can;t help but feel a little skeptical about anthropogenic climate change. Why did they change the name from global warming to global climate change, anyway?
Nat,
DeleteYour logic leaves me speechless, you don't still teach do you?
I'm not sure what you expect me to believe. I've been told that in science we go after the preponderance of evidence. It seems that the preponderance of evidence shows that climatologists get it wrong a lot of the time. So I'm pretty sure that it is very likely that they have it wrong here, too.
DeleteThe logic that "Scientists have been wrong before so they're probably wrong here too" is belied by the fact that science is self-correcting, and thus continuously becomes more and more accurate as more data comes in.
DeleteWhy did they change the name from global warming to global climate change, anyway?
As good example of this. The issue here is the increasing global temperatures due to the carbon in the atmosphere. But the name 'global warming' implies the planet will simply get hotter. This is a bit of a misnomer. For example... a warmer atmosphere increases the rate of polar ice melting. This may result in higher sea levels, but it may also affect the flow of the Global Ocean Conveyor Belt, which serves to regulate the temperature of the oceans and certain global regions. The net effect may be that some places such as Weatern Europe end up getting a lot colder.
Basically, 'climate change' more accurately suggests a wide range of repercussions that may arise from increased atmospheric temperatures.
I remember when the climatologist talked about acid rain all the time. Acid rain was killing all the trees and frogs. What happened with that?
It still happens and is still a global concern. But since the 70's, governments have been listening to warnings and taken steps to minimise its effects.
Then the big thing was ozone layer depletion.
Again, it is still a concern. Ozone depletion is link rather strongly to climate change.
It seems that every time the Chicken Littles say the atmosphere is falling, it isn't.
And how much do you really know about the subject? Really? Do you know the average global temperature? Do you know how it has fluctuated over the last several thousand years? Do you know the trajectory of the global species extinction rate? Have you seen comparative photographs of the arctic ice-sheet over the last few decades? Do you know any of the actual facts and figures at all? Frankly, what is your opinion compared to that of the experts?
I can;t help but feel a little skeptical about anthropogenic climate change.
You seriously think scientists sit around making this stuff up for fun? You think they choose to start international campaigns just to waste NATO's time and give themselves something to do?
richie,
DeleteYou seriously think scientists sit around making this stuff up for fun? You think they choose to start international campaigns just to waste NATO's time and give themselves something to do?
I expect many feel exactly that way, throw in " al gore getting rich," it is a hoax" to make a few people wealthy " . Ignoring who exactly has the most chips in the game.
natschuster May 30, 2013 at 8:57 PM
DeleteI'm not sure what you expect me to believe. I've been told that in science we go after the preponderance of evidence. It seems that the preponderance of evidence shows that climatologists get it wrong a lot of the time. So I'm pretty sure that it is very likely that they have it wrong here, too.
Yes, scientists get things wrong. They're human and fallible like the rest of us.
They also get things right. That's how they can send a tiny spacecraft on a rollercoaster journey round the solar system to rendezvous precisely with a distant planet like Saturn where it will be many years after launch.
The question is, how do you know which is which? What is forming your opinion?
Are you reading the primary research literature? Are you reading review articles in popular science journals. Are you only reading blogs whose agendas match your own opinions or are you just picking up the scraps that TV news and newspapers think are dramatic enough to show us?
As you say, what counts is the evidence. If you want to get an idea of what is really happening rather than what might be comforting, search it out and see for yourself what it indicates.
Ian, I like to read both sides of the issues regarding evolution, AGW, or other environmental issues. Then I like to evaluate motives, follow the money trail, and especially see how good predictions turned out. A failed prediction turns me off. Attempts to back track a failed prediction seriously turns me off. It doesn't mean I will be automatically against it, but it raises red flags and causes me to be skeptical and to critically evaluate assumptions.
DeleteI used to be an evolutionist, then skeptical of some of its claims. Now after 35 years of evaluating both sides of the evolution debate I view ToE a complete failure and superstition. Of course, natural selection, mutation, adaptive variation are real, but the way they are misused by evolutionists is sad.
I agree with you that scientists are fallible humans like the rest of us. I think that is always a good thing to keep in mind. For some people, scientists are elevated like ancient priests who speak with nearly infallible authority. If you get enough scientists with clout forming a consensus... look out scout. Skeptics are villified, bullied, and a fortress is built around the consensus and it becomes a fund raising and political cyclops.
Politicians and others see votes and/money and the notion of falsifying the consensus becomes more than just a scientific challenge. Now you've got emotions invested, money, fame, careers, politics,etc. Science will eventually win but it can take generations to turn it around.
Every failed theory, like corrupt politicians, usually have a straw that "breaks the camels back". The straws are piling up on ToE, its minions are fortifying it with hype, bullying, and the strength of consensus. The walls can't hold forever.
Neal, I have long thought the same way about evolution and the whole global warming hysteria.
DeleteI'll go one further. I think it's a waste of money to look for life on Mars and other planets as well. Think about it, if life is discovered on Mars, how is that going to help humanity? I know along the way scientist will discover new things that may or may not turn out to help, but I'm sure there is probably a much better way to spend those billions that NASA gets every year. I would prefer to have the money in the form of reduced taxes. If I'm not mistaken, the whole idea of life on other planets comes from an evolutionary perspective.
Marcus, evolutionists think that if the right conditions are present then it is nearly automatic that life will pop up... after all they believe it did not earth.
DeleteFor me finding life on another planet would be akin to finding a Chevy there. If there is life on another planet, then either it was created or planets and moons in our solar system it may have travelled there from earth. Life just can not spontaneously assemble from non-living materials.
I would actually be a bit surprised if God did not create life in other places of our cosmos.
Marcus,
DeleteI know along the way scientist will discover new things that may or may not turn out to help, but I'm sure there is probably a much better way to spend those billions that NASA gets every year
It costs $1 billion more than NASA's budget just to provide air conditioning for temporary tents and housing in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to Gizmodo. The total cost of keeping troops cool comes to roughly $20 billion. That figure comes from Steve Anderson, a retired brigadier general who was Gen. Petraeus' chief logistician in Iraq.
Neal -
DeleteFor some people, scientists are elevated like ancient priests who speak with nearly infallible authority. If you get enough scientists with clout forming a consensus... look out scout. Skeptics are villified, bullied, and a fortress is built around the consensus and it becomes a fund raising and political cyclops.
Absolute nonsense. Scientists are MADE by breaking through the limits of our knowledge. All famous scientific minds (and what scientist doesn't aspire to be one?) turned established thinking on its head. They broke out with radical new ideas. Conformity to dogma is the province of religion (they, after all, invented the concepts of heresey and forbidden ideas), not science.
There is, however, a caveat; you have to provide evidence for your ideas. If you have evidence then scientists will listen. It really is that simple. "The status quo are bullying me" is the petulant whine of self-righteous delusionals who think their ideas should be taken as seriously as established scientific theories despite having no evidence to back them up.
And this, of course, is where the ID/Creationist movement utterly breaks down. Not only is there no evidence for them, their ideas are not even scientific. And yet they think their untestable mythology should be put on a par with established theories which have been honed and refined through 150+ years of unforgiving, meticulous scientific critique.
Please.
evolutionists think that if the right conditions are present then it is nearly automatic that life will pop up... after all they believe it did not earth.
The missing factor here is time. Nothing is inevitable. Winning the lottery is highly unlikely - if you only play once. But if you keep playing every week for millions of years then it is actually highly probable that you will win eventually. And there is no logical call for supernatural explanations when it finally does happen.
Life just can not spontaneously assemble from non-living materials.
You know for a fact that such a thing is impossible? How?
Ritchie, life spontaneously assembling from non-living materials is like winning the lottery when there is no lottery.
DeleteOne can at least see why Darwin would speculate about the warm little pond, but our knowledge about life has progressed past such nonsense.
Even abiogenesis researchers dismiss chance as a solution.
Tedford the Slow
DeleteEven abiogenesis researchers dismiss chance as a solution.
Sure they do Tedford. That's why so many of them are still working on it, because they've decided it's impossible.
Thorton
Delete"That's why so many of them are still working on it"
Secure grants, no need of good results for publications, the same tests over an over the same sallary all are good reason to keep the faith.
Neal -
DeleteRitchie, life spontaneously assembling from non-living materials is like winning the lottery when there is no lottery.
A vaccuous reply.
One can at least see why Darwin would speculate about the warm little pond, but our knowledge about life has progressed past such nonsense.
Has it? Our knowledge has 'progressed' to such a level that we knowabiogenesis is impossible, has it?
Again, where is the evidence? How do we know this is impossible?
Even abiogenesis researchers dismiss chance as a solution.
Abiogenesis is a thriving area of study. We already know that amino acids, the very building blocks of life, form in a reduced atmosphere - and in great quantities. We know amino acids bond to form molecules. We know molecules cluster into cell-like structures called coacertives. The one thing that is actually missing is for these molecules to self-replicate. That is no reason for us to down tools and cry 'miracle' (well, not for any serious scientist, anyway).
Blas
Secure grants, no need of good results for publications, the same tests over an over the same sallary all are good reason to keep the faith.
You really don't have the slightest idea how science actually works, do you?
Which is okay - not everyone needs to be an expert. But thinking that you know better than the scientists is just laughable.
Sorry Ritchie, forgive me. I forgot that scientists are pure monks looking for Truth. Specially materilist scientist tha believe there is no Truth and a relative moral.
DeleteBlas -
DeleteSorry Ritchie, forgive me. I forgot that scientists are pure monks looking for Truth.
Baring the religious implications in the word 'monk', that is exactly what scientists are - seekers of the truth. And by far, without a shadow of doubt, the most accurate and reliable way of discovering truth is the scientific method. Not intuition, and certainly not divine revelation.
Specially materilist scientist tha believe there is no Truth
And back into not knowing what you're talking about, clearly.
You sneer at 'materialist' scientists because you don't understanmd that science is, by it's very nature, materialist. If your explanation is not materialist, then it is not science.
Deal with it.
and a relative moral.
Science says absolutely nothing at all about morality.
Again, you are clearly deeply, deeply confused.
Vel:It costs $1 billion more than NASA's budget just to provide air conditioning for temporary tents and housing in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to Gizmodo. The total cost of keeping troops cool comes to roughly $20 billion. That figure comes from Steve Anderson, a retired brigadier general who was Gen. Petraeus' chief logistician in Iraq.
DeleteI would prefer to spend the money on the troops. What they are doing is amazing, good and incredibly difficult. Troops need air conditioning? DONE!
NASA needs another 2.5 billion for...WHAT?!
ANOTHER ROVER? ARE YOU KIDDING ME???! And they are going to search for life on a sterile planet with no methane in the atmosphere? ;)
Marcus,
DeleteI would prefer to spend the money on the troops. What they are doing is amazing, good and incredibly difficult. Troops need air conditioning? DONE!
I agree, but as you say it is a preference, it merely demonstrates to amount of money we spent on NASA is small compared to the size of our budget. Yesterday a space rock flew by earth, eventually one of these things is going to do more than whiz by. Is that a practical need enough?
NASA needs another 2.5 billion for...WHAT?!
ANOTHER ROVER? ARE YOU KIDDING ME???! And they are going to search for life on a sterile planet with no methane in the atmosphere? ;)
It is a democracy, but remember that money is not burned in a oven, it is spent on people and the acquisition of knowledge.
Yesterday they discovered undisputed sign of flowing water on Mars. Personally I find that a better use of my tax money than some other uses , and yes menthane has been detected on Mars.
Exploration has unexpected consequences, the money to explore our neighborhood could become the most useful money ever spent.But be happy, NASA's budget is constantly cut by people who think like you.
"yes methane has been detected on Mars."
DeleteIf there's methane on Mars there must be cows around!
:)
Velik
DeleteVery important part of a good self regulating climate system is magnetic shield which prevents solar wind from blowing away the atmosphere. Gravity can keep only so much over billions of years time span.
Our sister planet Mars is also in a habitable zone but it doesn't have magnetic shield like Earth. Its atmosphere was thick at one time but its mostly blown away now. Composition of our atmosphere is favorable to blocking most of harmful radiation but passes visible light spectrum. Mars has nothing like that, its surface is bombarded by all types of (to life) harmful radiation.
Upper layers of our atmosphere extend hundreds of kilometers up but are so rare you could carry it all in a pickup truck. Yet they provide us with protection and they ionize just right to give us conditions for short wave (~2 to 30 MHz) refraction. Yes short waves are still used despite Internet.
Vel, My problem is the fact that my hard earned private property is taken by force to use on projects that would not exist if they were private.
DeleteI think what NASA does with exploration and space vehicles is great and the knowledge gained is fantastic. I think private enterprise would do better if there was profit in it. You could participate in the company by purchasing stock or bonds or futures. You could sit high on your horse and tell everybody how smart you were because you invested when everyone else was too stupid to realize how important the knowledge was. Or how about this, we could watch the Europeans and Russians spend their peoples money on space. Then American private industry could exploit the knowledge and make it useful for everybody.
We know there are homo sapiens who hate us and would love to exterminate us. A strong military will prevent that.
At any rate, all we could do is watch the asteroid hit the earth.
Were you able to see the asteroid with your telescope?
Eugen,
DeleteVery important part of a good self regulating climate system is magnetic shield which prevents solar wind from blowing away the atmosphere. Gravity can keep only so much over billions of years time span
Very true and fascinating. I think there is a theory that early in Martian history the planet was more geologically active, creating at least some magnetic shield. If only we had some way to explore the mars at ground level, like a rover.:)
Our sister planet Mars is also in a habitable zone but it doesn't have magnetic shield like Earth. Its atmosphere was thick at one time but its mostly blown away now. Composition of our atmosphere is favorable to blocking most of harmful radiation but passes visible light spectrum. Mars has nothing like that, its surface is bombarded by all types of (to life) harmful radiation
Mars has nothing like that now.If only there was an organization whose mission was to study such things.
Upper layers of our atmosphere extend hundreds of kilometers up but are so rare you could carry it all in a pickup truck. Yet they provide us with protection and they ionize just right to give us conditions for short wave (~2 to 30 MHz) refraction. Yes short waves are still used despite Internet.
Would living underground in caves help mitigate the effects of radiation? As I recall there is some indication that that levels of methane in the Martian is seasonally correlated, adding to speculation that vestiges of a Martian life still could exist underground.
But the theory that there once was flowing water seems confirmed.Personally find all this worth every penny spent.
Velik
DeleteHumans are natural born explorers: intelligent, versatile, curious, designers, warriors, artists, dreamers.
Unfortunately, we can only dream of interstellar explorations because our bodies would get dissolved into a mush from radiation. Star-ships should be shielded by special materials and magnetic field and much more. I'm thinking of Arthur Clark's Rama.
Also, lets not forget the silly coordinate axes attached (bam!) to the middle of our foreheads. You know, the relativity business, speed of light, time etc... Btw, your forehead would be the origin point for your frame of reference from which you as an observer will look at the universe, everything else is convention.
There is a whole organization which keeps the dream going, I think it'll stay a dream unless we can make Rama class ships.
Centauri dreams
Eugen,
DeleteUnfortunately, we can only dream of interstellar explorations because our bodies would get dissolved into a mush from radiation. Star-ships should be shielded by special materials and magnetic field and much more. I'm thinking of Arthur Clark's Rama.
Even Mars may be lethal, perhaps Dune, folding of space? It is going to take great advances in technology to become star voyagers. Let's hope a comet does not have our number before then,
Marcus,
DeleteVel, My problem is the fact that my hard earned private property is taken by force to use on projects that would not exist if they were private.
Until the technology is proven, for profits will pass. My private property is taken for subsidies,tax exempt properties for churches I don't attend,for bridges in Alaska I'll never use, in wars I don't support, it is the price one pays for all the stability of society.
Your private property is only worth something because of the sewers and roads and other infrastructure previous generations paid for and our children will pay for.
If all of this is too onerous sell your property ,move to the wilds of Alaska, no one will bother you there. If society disagrees with you what your taxes are used for, vote or vote with your feet.
is great and the knowledge gained is fantastic. I think private enterprise would do better if there was profit in it. You could participate in the company by purchasing stock or bonds or futures. You could sit high on your horse and tell everybody how smart you were because you invested when everyone else was too stupid to realize how important the knowledge was
Or as a collective we can invest in it without being motivated on how we can measure its monetary value. Who could have anticipated in 1913 the value of the theory of relativity to the US war effort thirty years later.
We use knowledge that other generations provided,don't we have a similar obligation to future generations? Again, there are no walls around this country. Or find enough like minded folks and vote them in.
Or how about this, we could watch the Europeans and Russians spend their peoples money on space. Then American private industry could exploit the knowledge and make it useful for everybody
Then it would be foolish to share to information with American companies,just as we keep certain technology away from foreign governments. Don't forget than a large number of scientists and businesses that pay taxes would be eliminated, Loss of existing programs which money has already been spent,
Are you eliminating the military space program? It is piggybacking on the NASA program results,so you need to increase military budget. The law of unintended consequences.After all much of the support for space is the theory of having the high ground
At any rate, all we could do is watch the asteroid hit the earth.
Were you able to see the asteroid with your telescope?
There are pictures,far beyond my abilities
Sooner you see asteriod the sooner you can judge were it is going. Serious people are seriously considering how to deflect an asteroid/ meteor, because it isn't a question if something will hit it is a question of when. Think if the Tunguska event had hit New York instead of Siberia .
But if you don't mind putting your survival in the hands of a foreign nation then by all means start cutting.
How much is New York City worth to the US? A smart person buys insurance.
Velik
Delete*Dune, folding of space*
Oh, yea that would be cool! That or Alcubierre drive. Whatever Chinese feel like making, they already make all the stuff we need, don't they.
I kind of came late across pro ID /anti ID discussions but I picked up some history from posts and comments.
Are you what they call theistic evolutionist? Or are you deist...or something like that?
Vel: Your private property is only worth something because of the sewers and roads and other infrastructure previous generations paid for and our children will pay for.
DeleteI know it's the system we have and all that. The public has figured out it's much easier to convince a few politicians that they need other peoples private property than it is to convince each and every one of the individuals to give it of their free will. GM is a great example. GM could have sold stock and bonds to generate the money it needed to survive, but investors weren't that stupid. So, they went to the government. It's much easier to convince a political hack they will lose votes if they don't help. I don't think voting works any longer. Anyway, I remember reading an article about congress. The gist of it was, we need more representatives, this would dilute the power of each representative but increase the power of smaller groups of people in districts across the USA.
Vel: Or as a collective we can invest in it without being motivated on how we can measure its monetary value. Who could have anticipated in 1913 the value of the theory of relativity to the US war effort thirty years later.
I have no problem with tax dollars going into production of weapons that keep America at the top.
Vel: Sooner you see asteriod the sooner you can judge were it is going. Serious people are seriously considering how to deflect an asteroid/ meteor, because it isn't a question if something will hit it is a question of when. Think if the Tunguska event had hit New York instead of Siberia .
You could present your case to Congress. Perhaps you will convince them to make you the spokesperson about the new impending doom. It's gonna be the end if we don't do something right now! Think about it, you could fly all over the world at the peoples expense, staying at all the best hotels, have private drivers shuttling you from event to event. Get Hollywood to make up a movie and on and on.
I'm not buying. I think it's a good idea to have some contingency plans. I like your idea of tracking the it when it becomes a meteorite. At least you could ostensibly get out of the way. Just think if the calculations were off and it hit where no one predicted. You would have scientists saying 'I told you so', conspiracy theories galore. Ultimately, there is a risk to living, and sooner or later, everyone is going to die. I was looking at the moon with my son the other night. Noticing all of the craters, the moon is still there after all of those impacts and so are we.
Eugen,
DeleteI kind of came late across pro ID /anti ID discussions but I picked up some history from posts and comments.
Are you what they call theistic evolutionist? Or are you deist...or something like that?
C) something like that
Aiguy at telic thoughts had an interesting label, a Mysterian, that has kinda a cool ring to it. Mostly a catholic by birth a skeptic at heart. Think there is something that might resemble God, but think the anthropomorphic version totally unlikely.
Not an fan of fundamentalists of any flavor but think everyone has a piece of truth if you can find it.Some not worth the effort.Maybe some kind of pantheistic lapsed catholic mysterian.
Yes, I figured something like that. I remember AIguy, he was ignostic. I never heard of ignosticism before that.
DeleteMarcus,
DeleteI have no problem with tax dollars going into production of weapons that keep America at the top.
My religion tells me it is wrong, why shouldn't supporting the military be voluntary as well?
The gist of it was, we need more representatives, this would dilute the power of each representative but increase the power of smaller groups of people in districts across the USA
Maybe, though I expect that would merely increase the cost of government.
GM could have sold stock and bonds to generate the money it needed to survive, but investors weren't that stupid
Investors were broke,the economy was teetering, the US bailout was the best among the bad choices. It was a " weapon"
You could present your case to Congress. Perhaps you will convince them to make you the spokesperson about the new impending doom. It's gonna be the end if we don't do something right now
I have a job, why is investing in tanks and technology to protect the US from one enemy good and from a potentially more devastating danger a waste, because it is not immanent?
now! Think about it, you could fly all over the world at the peoples expense, staying at all the best hotels, have private drivers shuttling you from event to event. Get Hollywood to make up a movie and on and on.
Fine, spend your tax money on tanks, I'll fund scientific research. Your investment is short term mine is long term. My taxes go down yours go up, remember you pay more for air conditioning tents than I pay for NASA.
I'm not buying
I like your idea of tracking the it when it becomes a meteorite. At least you could ostensibly get out of the way
Not a Chicxulub event, you move it or lose.
was looking at the moon with my son the other night. Noticing all of the craters, the moon is still there after all of those impacts and so are we
Good point, short term you are probably correct, penny wise,pound foolish, when did Shoemaker- Levy slam into Jupiter? Twenty years ago?
Ritchie
ReplyDelete" But since the 70's, governments have been listening to warnings and taken steps to minimise its effects."
They forgot to do it in China, India and Bangladesh where they just compacted 1000 slave workers who take too much space.
Acid rain, ozone layer depletion, global warming...baby belugas are waiting for our tax dollars to fix it all.
Eugen,
DeleteThey forgot to do it in China, India and Bangladesh where they just compacted 1000 slave workers who take too much space.
Is there a potential problem or not? Would you be willing to pay more if it resulted in better wages and safety for the workers, how much more?
Acid rain, ozone layer depletion, global warming...baby belugas are waiting for our tax dollars to fix it all.
It is not the belugas we need to be afraid for, it is the dominant species who will feel the greatest impact. I think all we can do is slow down the rate, I doubt man is able to act beyond the short term.
Acid rain, ozone layer depletion, global warming...baby belugas are waiting for our tax dollars to fix it all.
DeleteYou know, it is a common climate-change-denialist cry that "It's all a hoax to get our tax dollars" but really, does that add up? What taxes/tax rises have their actually been which have been brought purely to combat climate change?
The Green movement advocate using cars less in favour of public transport, car pooling or bikes and walking. They favour energy-saving lightbulbs, turning off electrical equipment when not needed. They advocate saving energy.
All this equates to making life CHEAPER for people, surly?
velikovskys
Delete"It is not the belugas we need to be afraid for, it is the dominant species who will feel the greatest impact."
May I take this as a prediction of the ToE?
If it fails it will falsify ToE or you will found an alternative explanation?
Ritchie said, "What taxes/tax rises have their actually been which have been brought purely to combat climate change?"
DeleteBillions a year just in the US alone.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/08/23/the-alarming-cost-of-climate-change-hysteria/
Then you have the millions spent in England and Europe. Not to mention climate change motivated government funding of failed Green companies like Solyndra that amounted to billions lost. Their solar panel manufacturing process was an environmental disaster in the making.
It's interesting that when the green extremists push for wind power they conveniently ignore all the eagles, spotted owls, bats and birds that are killed by them. Windmills have killed more birds than nuclear power plants.
Neal -
DeleteBillions a year just in the US alone.
If this money is being put towards a cleaner fuels and a greener planet then this is not money wasted.
Windmills have killed more birds than nuclear power plants.
That is because when birds are killed by windmills it is obvious - the body is right there. Of the other hand, the damage done by nuclear power plants is extremely difficult to quantify.
It's interesting that when the green extremists push for wind power they conveniently ignore all the eagles, spotted owls, bats and birds that are killed by them.
That's because all environmentalists are actually psychopaths who want to destroy all life on Earth in disguise. I thought everyone knew that...
I mean come on! Environmentalists are trying to create a cleaner, more sustainable world for everyone. Do you honestly doubt those motives? Yes, no method of energy production is perfect - if it was then that would be the problem solved. But what good does it do to sneer that if something isbn't perfect then it isn't worth trying?
If you are too lazy and stubborn to lift a finger to help the environment, or if you simply don't care the about it, then just man up and say so. Just admit that you don't care how we exploit the planet. I mean why should you - you're not going to be around when our grandchildren have to deal with the fallout, will you? But don't pretend this is not a noble cause.
Neal,
DeleteIt's interesting that when the green extremists push for wind power they conveniently ignore all the eagles, spotted owls, bats and birds that are killed by them. Windmills have killed more birds than nuclear power plants
How about the oil companies,more or less wildlife than wind turbines? Deepwater horizon ring a bell?
Then you have the millions spent in England and Europe. Not to mention climate change motivated government funding of failed Green companies like Solyndra that amounted to billions lost
The American Coalition for Ethanol estimates that when combined with state and local government aid to large oil companies, subsidies amount to anywhere from $133.8 billion to $280.8 billion annually from all sources of taxpayer aid that goes to the oil and gas industry.
That is where the big money is not a climatologist working for a salary,
Blas,
DeleteMay I take this as a prediction of the ToE?
If it fails it will falsify ToE or you will found an alternative explanation?
That man is subject to natural selection? If sea levels rise it will affect man more than the whales?
That is the prediction? Whales will survive to humans a global warming. If it not happens ToE will be falsified?
DeleteVel, green extremists are against carbon based fuel (except when they fly to resorts and feast on lobster), but seem to ignore the dangers of alternative energy.
DeleteI'm not claiming to have all the answers, and I'm not in favor of subsidizing oil companies either, but some professional AGWer's have commited fraud.
Often the best solutions are found by working together on environmental issues and not creating false science.
A good example is the selective cutting of the Redwood forests. It not only benefits the economy, but leads to a healthier forest. The extreme is either no cutting or cutting everything in site. But, in this case a compromise worked out well.
It has been documented that many senior citizens have died from lack of heat in the homes in England while millions are spent on "climate change".
As far as I'm concerned oil companies and AGWer's should not receive any tax payer funding.
Ritchie, I've planted hundred of trees through the years and love the outdoors.
DeleteThe earth should be taken care of, but I don't see the difference between an oil spill killing birds or windmills doing it. The difference being the oil spill is an abnormal event while windmill killing is part of its normal everyday operations.
They want to shut down oil production to prevent possible future spills, but its full forward for windmills to slice and dice birds. Oil-bad, wind-good and there is no pausing to make windmills safer for wildlife.
Neal -
DeleteA good example is the selective cutting of the Redwood forests. It not only benefits the economy, but leads to a healthier forest.
'Selective cutting' makes for a healthier forest? How?
It has been documented that many senior citizens have died from lack of heat in the homes in England while millions are spent on "climate change".
Scaremongering twaddle.
For one thing, there is no epidemic of old people dying of the cold, I assure you.
For another, of course you can argue that governments can spend public money more efficiently. You can always argue that. That doesn't mean any one particular source of spending is a 'waste'.
The earth should be taken care of, but I don't see the difference between an oil spill killing birds or windmills doing it. The difference being the oil spill is an abnormal event while windmill killing is part of its normal everyday operations.
The danger with oil is not merely spills (though they are certainly events of great ecological concern). The major issue is the huge amounts of carbon we are pumping back into the atmosphere.
They want to shut down oil production to prevent possible future spills, but its full forward for windmills to slice and dice birds.
Of course. Because environmentalists are psychopaths who enjoy watching birds get sliced by windmills. It's hilarious. Go to any environmentalist convention and they just play videos of birds dying on loop for hours and hours while we all sit round and have a jolly good laugh.
Oil-bad, wind-good and there is no pausing to make windmills safer for wildlife.
What exactly is your argument? That climate change is all a big hoax? If you think so, then you are wrong. The science on this point is overwhelming. It has been accepted by virtually every panel and institution on the subject. Anyone who SHOULD know if climate change was real, is in fact telling us exactly that.
Or is your argument merely that windmills are not a perfect replacement source of fuel? If so, you're right - they aren't. But not every environmentalist is pushing for windfarms. There are other sources of fuel, and if you can think of one that has zero negative impact on the environment then please, we are all ears. I assure you you will be quite the hero.
Blas,
DeleteThat is the prediction? Whales will survive to humans a global warming. If it not happens ToE will be falsified?
Not making a great deal of sense,Blas.Are you asking if climate change is not an extinction event then extinction events are impossible? That a radical decrease in food production would not cause great disruption to mankind?
Yes Blas if humans are not extinct in five hundred years and whales are extinct ,I will personally concede your point.
My point is that concern for whales is secondary . Man's main concern should be what he is doing to himself.
Neal,
DeleteVel, green extremists are against carbon based fuel (except when they fly to resorts and feast on lobster), but seem to ignore the dangers of alternative energy.
Which ones? No one is ignoring the dangers,which ironically the non green extremists usually deny being a danger. Again, how many animals died in the gulf? Are saying if you don't care then it is ok to have the source of your energy kill animals?
I'm not claiming to have all the answers, and I'm not in favor of subsidizing oil companies either
Good. But since we subsidize all form of energy,then you moaning about the small percentage aimed at alternative sources seem like selective outrage.
but some professional AGWer's have commited fraud.
Climategate? What were the findings on fraud?
A good example is the selective cutting of the Redwood forests. It not only benefits the economy, but leads to a healthier forest. The extreme is either no cutting or cutting everything in site. But, in this case a compromise worked out well.
I expect that it depends on which redwoods you clear and how much damage is done thru logging.
It has been documented that many senior citizens have died from lack of heat in the homes in England while millions are spent on "climate change".
Six times more subsidies for fossil fuel, was the British government to impoverished by only the climate change money?
As far as I'm concerned oil companies and AGWer's should not receive any tax payer funding.
Funny how your argument was only concerning alternative energy as a waste. It is the millions for alternative energy which caused the Brits to freeze,not the 6 x millions.
They want to shut down oil production to prevent possible future spills, but its full forward for windmills to slice and dice birds. Oil-bad, wind-good and there is no pausing to make windmills safer for wildlife.
Except of course for this:
"
American Bird Conservancy supports wind power when it is bird-smart, and believes that birds and wind power can co-exist if the wind industry is held to mandatory standards that protect birds.
Bird-smart wind power employs careful siting, operation and construction mitigation, bird monitoring, and compensation, to reduce and redress any unavoidable bird mortality and habitat loss. These are issues that the federal government should include in mandatory wind standards. For terrestrial wind farms, bird-smart wind should address: "
Would you like to research a bit more ,maybe another source than Fox News?
ReplyDelete"You know, it is a common climate-change-denialist cry that "It's all a hoax to get our tax dollars""
I could be an uncommon global warming denialist. Actually, I think I'm right on the ball. I read Dr Tim Ball's web site re. climate issues.
Dr Tim Ball
He's one climatologist the IPCC will not invite to their global trotting luxury conventions paid by our tax money.
Eugen, Bjorn Lomborg also won't be invited.
DeleteEugen,
ReplyDeleteSounds like a pretty common type, mention al gore, tax money spent, missed your answer " is it even possible man can cause climate change"
Tim Ball seems to be a well known figure, since other scientists are suspect due to financial concerns,would his ties to Exxon also be relevant?
If it science shouldn`t be matter of controversy. So no matter personal agendas the arguments have to show the best hypothesis.
DeleteMarcus ,thanks for Lomborg info, he seems to be skeptic,too.
DeleteVelik, yes it's possible that we humans add to the effects of global warming but it seems like a natural process mostly. Anyway there's a lot of info on Tim Ball's page. I cannot believe someone didn't use guy's name to say a silly ( and useless) thing.
Eugen,
DeleteVelik, yes it's possible that we humans add to the effects of global warming but it seems like a natural process mostly
You are right,that makes you an uncommon climate skeptic. I agree it is complicated, mostly consisting of statistical methods far beyond a layman's grasp. I personally trust climatologists more than I do the oil companies. Big money depends on status quo. People are short sighted, and your taxes are going up no matter what.
And we are used to some people saying useless or silly things, it is part of their charm:)
OT: Isn`t this a problem for the story of ToE:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/176874/icode/
Why would it be?
DeleteTest
DeleteDid somebody say something?
DeleteYes, Lord spoke, open your ears.
ReplyDelete:)
The first thread is so big it's hard to follow. Maybe they should continue here.
Sounds like a plan.
Delete