Tuesday, November 29, 2011

Global Warming Quandary Resolved

In light of last week's release of more emails revealing ulterior motives of climate researchers, we felt a reprint of our reporting of an overlooked breakthrough resolution to the entire quandary was in order. --Ed.

New research out this week has resolved a long-standing, and important, quandary about the causes of global warming. While several models point to anthropogenic CO2 and other greenhouse gases as the leading cause of global warming, the warming trends do not quite match the history of anthropogenic CO2. In fact, shrinking glaciers and other undeniable evidences of warming trace back to about the mid seventeenth century. But this predates the significant rise in anthropogenic CO2 that came in later centuries. Now environmental researchers have solved the puzzle. While CO2 is undoubtedly an important factor in certain warming events, by far the most significant cause is the hot air emitted by evolutionists. In other words, anthropogenic theory rather than anthropogenic industry is the root cause of global warming.

What is particularly convincing about the new research is how precisely the earth's temperature correlates with major discharges of evolutionary hot air. As the figure illustrates, temperature spikes over the past three and a half centuries align perfectly with the history of thought. The correlation is simply too uncannny to doubt. Only the "flat-earth" warming deniers will find a way to explain this away.



In fact just today Canadian researchers recorded a significant warming event, which they were able to localize to a region over central Canada and the northern midwest of the USA. The timing (and location) correlate perfectly with a blog published by evolutionist PZ Myers entitled "The Ubiquity of Exaptation" where Myers pollutes science with a particularly acute hot gaseous emission. In fact one of the researchers, using a new experimental localization algorithm, believes he has traced the emission to a city block where, as it turns out, Myers resides. The researcher believes Myers wrote the blog from his home office.

In that blog Myers made several asanine statements about the evolution myth. In particular Myers emitted seemingly hilarious, but in fact environmentally dangerous, statements about the evolution of the nervous system. These included:

We use variations in these voltages to send electrical signals down the length of our nerves, but they initially evolved as a mechanism to cope with maintaining our salt balance.

I concluded this section by trying to reassure everyone that their brain is something more than just a collection of paramecia swimming about. Although the general properties of the membrane are the same, evolution has also refined and expanded the capabilities of the neuronal membrane: there are many different kinds of ion channels, which we can see by their homology to one another are also products of evolution, and each one is specialized in unique ways to add flexibility to the behavioral repertoire of the cell. The origins of the electrical properties are a byproduct of salt homeostasis, but once that little bit of function is available, selection can amplify and hone the response of the system to get some remarkably sophisticated results.

Once again, the cell simply reuses machinery that evolved for other purposes to carry out these functions.

The Trichoplax genome has been sequenced, and found to contain a surprising number of the proteins used in synaptic signaling…but it doesn't have a brain or any kind of nervous system, and none of its four cell types are neurons. What a mindless slug like Trichoplax uses these proteins for is secretion: it makes digestive enzymes, not neurotransmitters, and sprays them out onto the substrate to dissolve its food. Again, in more derived organisms with nervous systems, they have simply coopted this machinery to use in signaling between neurons.

We also contain a great many possible signals: long- and short-range cues, signals that attract or repel, and also signals that can change gene expression inside the neuron and change its behavior in even more complicated ways. It's still at its core an elaboration of behaviors found in protists and even bacteria; we are looking at amazingly powerful emergent behaviors that arise from simple mechanisms.

You can see how extreme was this incident of evolutionary story telling. But what we once thought were merely hilarious and asanine mythological narratives are now clearly very, very dangerous environmental toxins. The bad news is that evolutionary theory far exceeds anthropogenic CO2 as the leading cause of global warming. The good news is that we now understand the cause.

29 comments:

  1. Yeesh. That was pretty cringeworthy Corny old boy.

    Being a biophysicist creationist and all, maybe you should actually post _what's wrong_ with those statements, rather than just bolding them and letting tangible smugness and clumsy humour do the work?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Climategate Forecast...
    “• What is the current scientific consensus on the conclusions reached by Drs. Mann, Bradley and Hughes? [Referring to the hockey stick propagated in UN IPCC 2001 by Michael Mann.]
    Ans: Based on the literature we have reviewed, there is no overarching consensus on MBH98/99. As analyzed in our social network, there is a tightly knit group of individuals who passionately believe in their thesis. However, our perception is that this group has a self-reinforcing feedback mechanism and, moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicized that they can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility.”
    AD HOC COMMITTEE REPORT ON THE ‘HOCKEY STICK’ GLOBAL CLIMATE RECONSTRUCTION, also known as The Wegman report was authored by Edward J. Wegman, George Mason University, David W. Scott, Rice University, and Yasmin H. Said, The Johns Hopkins University with the contributions of John T. Rigsby, III, Naval Surface Warfare Center, and Denise M. Reeves, MITRE Corporation.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "As analyzed in our social network, there is a tightly knit group of individuals who passionately believe in their thesis."

    LOL - As analyzed in our social network - science by Facebook...

    ... a tightly knit group... - this refers to the social network that did the analysis, right?

    ReplyDelete
  4. CH reminds me of that dorky kid in grade school who played class clown to hide his embarrassment over not being able to do his scholastic work.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The recipe for charlatan style science:

    1. Start with a political agenda.

    2. Create an artifical framework based on rationalism (justify logically what you feel like doing anyway).

    3. Appeal to base human motives such as thinking you're better than someone else. Add the promise of money and power and fame.

    4. Cherry pick the data to create a hockey stick temperature chart or tree of life or whatever your trying to justify. Hint, if you have enough data, nearly anything you want can be justified in this way.

    5. Create high sounding claptrap words that give it an air of intellectualism but explain little or nothing.

    6. Base your arguments chiefly on calling skeptics names and villifying them.

    ReplyDelete
  6. CH -

    Very witty, I'm sure. But one point of curious contention - you have Malebranche, Leibniz and Kant as 'evolutionists'. But they predate Darwin, who drew up the theory of evolution.

    I wonder if it will dawn on you at some point that your problem is NOT with the theory of evolution - it is with science and rational thought. But I'm not holding my breath.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Ritchie,

    Malebranche, Leibniz and Kant contributed to laying the foundation of rationalism on which evolution was built and then years later to Darwin popularizing it. Even if that is a stretch it makes CH's point because evolutionists will take the same approach in cherry picking bits of "evidence" to spin their data to say whatever they want. It was also how the hockey stick chart itself was conceived. The more educated you are the easier it is to spin empty claptrap for the purpose of justifying what you feel like all along.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Neal -

    "Malebranche, Leibniz and Kant contributed to laying the foundation of rationalism on which evolution was built and then years later to Darwin popularizing it."

    So Cornelius' problem is with rationalism then? Why does he not tirade against that? Why is it always 'evolution'?

    "Even if that is a stretch..."

    It is.

    "...it makes CH's point because evolutionists will take the same approach in cherry picking bits of "evidence" to spin their data to say whatever they want."

    Non-sequitur. 'Evolutionists cherry-pick data, therefore I can blame people who lived centuries before a theory was drawn up for what I see as the failings of that theory'? Logic fail.

    "The more educated you are the easier it is to spin empty claptrap for the purpose of justifying what you feel like all along."

    Umm, are you suggesting climate change scientists are deliberately lying? One question: why? Why would anyone want to sell the idea that the planet is in ecological peril when it wasn't? I don't understand that. On the other hand I CAN understand why people wouldn't want to believe that conclusion, and would rather call such scientists liars, dupes and puppets - especially if they have issues with the scientific status-quo anyway and are no strangers to dismissing what scientists say when it conflicts with their preferred worldviews...

    ReplyDelete
  9. Ritchie, Umm, are you suggesting climate change scientists are deliberately lying?

    Not in my words, but in theirs...

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/11/23/climategate-2-0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/

    That's just the tip of the proverbial iceberg

    ReplyDelete
  10. Darwinism and the human made global warming theories come from the same sick vine of rationalism... Trying to justify what they feel and cherry picking some "evidence" to make it intellectually pleasing. Intellectuals wrap it up in high sounding claptrap that makes it more intellectually appealing than a lying crybaby kid making excuses for raiding the cookie jar, but at its core it's the same.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Neal -

    "Not in my words, but in theirs..."

    Ummm, this is actually just another batch of excerpts served up from the very same emails hacked from University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit two years ago, is it not? Climategate 1.0 (as I imagine it is now being referred to) was thoroughly investigated and everyone cleared of all charges.

    Meanwhile, Anthropocentric Climate Change is being verified - by the very people who once opposed it:

    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/10/21/new-independent-climate-study-confirms-global-warming-is-real/

    Nice to see some climate change deniers are open-minded enough to change their opinions when confronted with the evidence.

    "Darwinism and the human made global warming theories come from the same sick vine of rationalism."

    Yes, it's called science.

    "Trying to justify what they feel and cherry picking some "evidence" to make it intellectually pleasing."

    My question was: why would they 'feel like it'? Why would anyone want to make up evidence showing the planet is in ecological peril when it wasn't? What's to gain? Where is the motive here? What is the reasoning? Or is it just that anyone who doesn't believe what you believe are just eeeeeevil liars and duplicitous sinners?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Neal
    Trying to justify what they feel and cherry picking some "evidence" to make it intellectually pleasing. Intellectuals wrap it up in high sounding claptrap that makes it more intellectually appealing than a lying crybaby kid making excuses for raiding the cookie jar, but at its core it's the same.


    Please help me understand, exactly how are they the same? Are intellectuals stealing your religious beliefs on how things came to be? And when you accuse them of stealing your cookie they use some lame intellectual claptrap excuse( natural cause) . This causes you to be sad and mad

    ReplyDelete
  13. Dr Hunter,

    Your "wit" ,while appreciated could, use a little work. First the setup of the joke is way too long, get to the point.However the use of "Canadians " is a nice touch, a homage to "Canadian Bacon",perhaps? A good satire should work on several levels.
    And no offense but Malebranche and Leibniz and Kant? An inside joke is ok but those make you look like one of those "intellectuals". Remember your target audience.
    On the plus side,any speculation that your normal posts must surely be some sort of tongue in cheek jab at creationism is put to rest

    ReplyDelete
  14. velikovskys, the false premises of evolution are not subject to impartial investigation and empirical science by evolutionists. Bird beaks and such don't count for evidence any more than a boiling pot of water.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Tedford the Idiot said...

    The recipe for charlatan style science:

    1. Start with a political agenda.


    The Discovery Institute's Wedge document - Check

    2. Create an artifical framework based on rationalism (justify logically what you feel like doing anyway).

    "It looks designed to me, so it must be designed." Check.

    3. Appeal to base human motives such as thinking you're better than someone else. Add the promise of money and power and fame.

    Call all evolutionary scientists liar and frauds, offer to 'rise above' such pettiness - Check.

    4. Cherry pick the data to create a hockey stick temperature chart or tree of life or whatever your trying to justify. Hint, if you have enough data, nearly anything you want can be justified in this way.

    Cornelius Hunter's "1 in 10^70" probability. Tedford the Idiot's "sea squirt genes" - Check.

    5. Create high sounding claptrap words that give it an air of intellectualism but explain little or nothing.

    " dFSCI - Digital Functional Complex Specified Information" - Check.

    6. Base your arguments chiefly on calling skeptics names and villifying them.

    Farting Judge Jones animations, attacks on Richard Dawkins - Check.

    Wow Tedford, you just described the Intelligent Design Creation movement to a tee!

    ReplyDelete
  16. Neal -

    "the false premises of evolution are not subject to impartial investigation and empirical science by evolutionists."

    Anything is open to impartial investigation and empirical science. Anything.

    "Bird beaks and such don't count for evidence any more than a boiling pot of water."

    And why the Hell not, exactly?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Neal,

    The cookie stealing,excuse making,lying crybaby analogy still has me baffled. Then this bird beaks and such is no more proof than a pot of boiling water. I understand that those are finches' beaks and " such" probably refers to all the genetics and fossils and experiments and papers and books,normally referred to as proof, but a pot of boiling water? Is that something like Richie's chocolate knife? A local saying? Just curious

    ReplyDelete
  18. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Bird beaks represent evidence for species adapting existing traits and follows a cyclical pattern over time as the environment changes back and forth. Nothing more. Regulation of the Bmp4 protein is the primary way that finch beak variation occurs.

    It has nothing to do with unbounded directional evolution via mutation+natural selection or whatever new claptrap rationalism that is preferred this week by evolutonists.

    ReplyDelete
  20. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Neal, I appreciate that is your view,I actually was interested in "the pot of boiling water " analogy. Why would a pot of boiling water be used as non- proof? Does it have a meaning or is it something that you coined yourself?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Neal -

    "Bird beaks represent evidence for species adapting existing traits and follows a cyclical pattern over time as the environment changes back and forth. Nothing more."

    Okay. But so what? If you think this is the best evidence 'evolutionists' have to support ToE then you are woefully mistaken.

    "It has nothing to do with unbounded directional evolution via mutation+natural selection or whatever new claptrap rationalism that is preferred this week by evolutonists."

    D'oh!

    It has everything to do with natural selection. That's exactly what it is an example of.

    ReplyDelete
  23. velikovskys, the boiling pot of water was my phrase to point out how irrelevant bird beaks are to evolution.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Ritchie, it does not automatically follow that evidence for natural selection is evidence for evolution. Cyclical variation of bird beaks has nothing to do with where bird beaks came from.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Neal -

    ???

    Are you sure you understand what the theory of evolution is?

    In a nutshell, it says animal species change and diverge through natural selection acting on variation in the gene pool, brought about initially through random mutation. That's pretty much it. If you believe that natural selection can drive change in a species, then you believe in evolution.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Ritchie said, "it says animal species change and diverge through natural selection acting on variation in the gene pool, brought about initially through random mutation."

    --

    Right, and since bird beak evidence doesn't relate to the random mutation part but to the regulation of the existing Bmp4 protein and natural selection, it is not evidence for evolution. I take evolution as the whole nutshell you just defined. I'll not play in definition shell games.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Neal -

    "Right, and since bird beak evidence doesn't relate to the random mutation part but to the regulation of the existing Bmp4 protein and natural selection, it is not evidence for evolution."

    You are saying you don't believe in random mutations? You don't believe random mutations happen? There are never any copying errors in genes...?

    ...really?

    ReplyDelete
  28. Ritchie, I'm not saying that I don't believe in random mutations...

    I'm saying here specifically that Darwin and friends' bird beak data is not evidence for evolution because what they observed and reported on has nothing to do with random mutations or any other kind of unbounded, directional change in bird beaks.

    So all the excitement by evolutionists since Darwin about bird beaks and their proud illustrations in a 100 years worth of children's and advanced biology textbooks wasn't even demonstrating evolution.

    But a huge portion of the "mountain of evidence" for evolution are these bird beak style observations... natural selection that isn't selecting random mutations.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Neal -

    You admit random mutations happen. You accept natural selection is a real natural force. So what exactly is the problem here?

    Random mutations occur in a gene pool all the time and account for the diversity of features. Natural selection acts on that diversity. Which the finches' beaks are a simple, elegant example of.

    That is the role random mutation plays in evolution - to ensure variation. To make sure some animals are bigger, some smaller, some with longer legs, some with shorter legs, some with darker fur, some with lighter fur, and, yes, some with big beaks, some with small beaks.

    It sounds remarkably like you do actually accept evolution - the mechanisms of it do actually make sense to you - but you fail to realise it because you are so conditioned to saying you reject it through your religious brainwashing.

    ReplyDelete