Sciencemadness Discussion Board - Green, A Scientific Prespective

Green, A Scientific Prespective

DeathAdder - 1-12-2011 at 17:59

My goal here is to establish a totally scientific viewpoint on "global warming" . I do not want any politics on this and all things must be sourced. I would like every member of science madness to make a post on this, i have a template to follow below.

I do not (do agree) with the validity of global warming.

(put reasons here)......................................................

Thanks.

Endimion17 - 1-12-2011 at 18:35

Could you be more specific? Are you reffering to the scientifically proven fact that the hydrosphere+atmosphere system is abnormally increasing its global average temperature? Because if you are, you might as well ask do we agree on the fact that our planet is round, that it turns around the Sun and hosts a wide spectrum of living matter that is subjected to random evolution in all its glory, so to say.
Asking such question on a scientifically oriented forum is pointless.

Or you're asking about our opinion what might be the cause of this phenomenon? Everything so far points out to our civilization, but that statement is surely weaker than the first one above and it's possible to question it without making a fool of yourself.

Or is it about the question whether we can do anything about this phenomenon? Because that's a very good question without definitive answers.

Or is it whether we should employ taxes? That's also a good question. Actually it's the only question that really gives you the full freedom of discussion.

These levels of discussion exist as solid steps and can not and must not be mangled together. So it would be great if you could be more specific.

Sedit - 1-12-2011 at 19:58

Endimions first example seems to be what your looking for correct DeathAdder? The statement that "Everything so far points out to our civilization", is a very arguable point that myself and I'm sure many others do not agree with. There have been temperature fluctuations much greater then what we have seen in recent times well before civilization has existed and this is my reasoning for why I do not fully agree with Global warming hypothesis and feel there is much more work to be done before I could even begin to make a conclusion.

I personally and I think it's along the lines of what DeathAdder is looking for is charts, data, solid proof instead of bias papers. Its much harder to repeatedly fake the results of ice core samples and stuff of that nature then it is to make recent fluctuations seem grander then they may be.

So does anyone have any hard data on GW?

zoombafu - 1-12-2011 at 20:05

I think that there is no way to either prove or disprove the idea that humans have caused global warming. Right now there is both an even amount of evidence to support it as there is to refute it. If there was indisputable evidence we would know it, and there would not be so much controversy. So because of this fact there is no way to have a true discussion without it being opinionated.

DerAlte - 1-12-2011 at 20:14

There's a thread on this topic running now. Why not post there instead of littering the forum?

"(put reasons here)......................................................"

Far too simplistic - read the thread.

Der Alte

Endimion17 - 2-12-2011 at 05:09

Quote: Originally posted by zoombafu

I think that there is no way to either prove or disprove the idea that humans have caused global warming. Right now there is both an even amount of evidence to support it as there is to refute it. If there was indisputable evidence we would know it, and there would not be so much controversy. So because of this fact there is no way to have a true discussion without it being opinionated.

Actually, there not much controversy except in the public mind of USA. Outside America, majority of people feel different. It might not seem to some, but it is.
The world is actually laughing and pointing to this country, with majority of people that don't even believe GW is a fact, let alone we're the probable cause.

The balance for the cause is not 50:50 as you're implying. It's shifted towards us because it strongly correlates with the beggining of the industrial revolution and follows it quite well. There can be and there certainly are other causes as well, but our industry isn't a piece of cake.

But with the majority of USA citizens that don't accept evolution, you can't expect otherwise. Their world is static, and they're the "masters" and the world is "god given to them". And it's a shame.
I've even heard BBC's "Frozen Planet" is being censored for USA audience. What a dreadful shame.

The only key problem I see around GW is whether we should employ very restrictive taxes and pump the "green technologies". I say no.
There are passive ways that avoid the opportunities for making lots of actually not so green, dirty money.
I'm highly against the whole hype connected to "windmills, Greenpeace" and consider it to be bullshit.

Sedit - 2-12-2011 at 06:49

You have a very distorted view of the USA dude, the majority of us dont believe in evolution? Where do you hear this shit from? The USA dont believe in GW? Again where does your information come from antiamerican terrorist pamphlets? You may want to research more about the USA before talking about it anymore because we are the ones over here laughing and pointing fingers right now.

m1tanker78 - 2-12-2011 at 07:05

Endimion: You're free to share your misguided opinions about Americans, God and politics here (within forum rules). You paint the American picture with a VERY broad brush and a narrow mind.

Tank

blogfast25 - 2-12-2011 at 07:28

Sedit:

The US has the highest proportion of people who reject Evolutionary Biology and prefer religion of the entire ‘civilised world’ (see also the laughable spectacle of Republican wannabe nominees falling over themselves denying EB is a valid scientific paradigm). These are verifiable facts that don’t come from an ‘antiamerican terrorist pamphlet’ (can you hear your own thoughts when you write this stuff??? Name me a terrorist that has invoked EB or EB deniers!)

It’s very similar with anthropogenic climate change: again the US has by far the largest proportion of deniers of the First World, without a shimmer of a doubt. See also the US’s reluctance/refusal with regards to various worldwide climate change initiatives and treaties.

When I was a chemistry student, the science of the global climate was very much in its infancy and great uncertainty existed regards possible man made climate changes and their consequences. Well, even after only tentative noises had been made about possible effects of massive CO2 dumping on the earth’s climate, American authors started writing books about how all this would be bad for the economy, especially for Big Oil. They never stopped since.

”There have been temperature fluctuations much greater then what we have seen in recent times well before civilization has existed and this is my reasoning for why I do not fully agree with Global warming hypothesis and feel there is much more work to be done before I could even begin to make a conclusion.”

That’s almost a caricature of the theory of man made climate change. Whilst there remains (inevitable) uncertainty about the actual effects of temperature rises the vast majority of the evidence isn’t really in dispute by anyone (and not by many American scientists either - hint: the clowns of Faux Noise don’t count as scientists!)

”we are the ones over here laughing and pointing fingers right now.”

Oh, really? Lemmesee:

Embroiled in several illegal and hugely expensive wars? Check.
Loss of traction of FP in the ME? Check.
Dictators supported by the US (Mubarak, Saleh) ousted? Check.
Economy in tatters? Check.
Unfettered Capitalism being challenged? Check.

If you’re still laughing at that stage you’ve a twisted sense of humour…

Sedit - 2-12-2011 at 07:33

Don't get me wrong, I encourage Endimion to share his sentiment as it gives me a broader idea as how the world views the USA but at the same time if I hear incorrect information I will correct it as I see it.

Very little of the USA does not believe in Evolution. Yes I'm sure there is a very tiny subsection that claims to not believe and even in that religious subsection I'm pretty sure the vast majority of them know the truth and just do not want to admit it due to religious beliefs.

The USA did not censor out that episode the BBC did, and they did not do it because of the USA beliefs they made it and another behind the scenes episode optional for the entire world. The USA voted to include portions of the episode due to scheduling conflicts which is not at all uncommon while much of the world dropped them all together. This is not censorship this is just typical cable TV operations compounded by a desire to hate America so propaganda is placed out there by extremist bloggers.

bquirky - 2-12-2011 at 07:45

just straight out beating on the USA is intellectually lazy and says more about a general willingness to take the mainstream media at face value while building your world view.

any large population will have a subsequently large number of nuts. it just so happens that nuts get better raitings. and US nuts are broadcast world wide.

the US as a country has contributed vastly to the present modern state of science.
(building on a foundation provided by century's of work by European natural philosophers )

if you want to argue that AGW is gona kill us all then. great.
if you reject those claims and can articulate why then hazzaa.

but dont stoop down too "well _they_ dont believe in evolution man whada you expect"

it just makes you look like a dick.

Sedit - 2-12-2011 at 07:49

Real facts:

You can see in this graph that over the last thousand years there has not been a dramatic change. The spike we are in could be perfectly normal if not for human interaction considering we are exiting the time period known as the little ice age where IIRC volcanic ash cooled the earth significantly. To see a rebound spike from such an occurrence may not be abnormal and I am going to look deeper into global temperatures from ice core models and such to see if there is a correlation between rapid spikes after a period of cooling because many other factors could be at play here other then human interaction.

Here we see recent fluctuations before and after the industrial revolution and the spike we see in 1880 is not much different the the spike we see around 1940 and yet they are both followed by brief cool spells. The biggest point is that you can clearly see that the cold spell around 1850 was -0.4 degree where as the temperature now is around +0.4 degrees, this is well within a margin of error when it comes to geological time.

The most interesting part of this graph is the difference between the yearly temperature and that of the five year average. You can see a smoothing out of the 5 year average as one would expect and a further smoothing out if one where to take a 10 or 20 year average.

On a geological scale what we are basing the majority of our Global warming hypothesis on is akin to graphing a single day out of a year that is slightly above average and suggesting that the entire year was warmer then average. Then going on further to say that because its a hot summer day the entire world is getting hotter. The evidence just does not mount up when put into perspective of geological time. I am more then willing to change my point of view but no one has come forth with convincing enough data to suggest otherwise. There have been much warmer periods in the history of the earth well before human existence, where we the cause of that as well?

[Edited on 2-12-2011 by Sedit]

ScienceSquirrel - 2-12-2011 at 07:59

America is probably more religious than most West European countries.
Most West European politicians seldom mention their religious beliefs while it seems that American Presidential candidates, particularly Republican ones, have to prove their piety as a condition for office.
Fundamental Christianity is present in most West European countries but it is nowhere near the percentage in the US and it lacks anything like the financial firepower.
That said, the US is a country that occupies a large part of a continent and has States as diverse as California and Alaska in it.

sxl168 - 2-12-2011 at 08:08

Do I believe the Earth is warming? Yes, data clearly shows that. Has it exceeded past temperature extremes? Data I have seen so far says no. I don't think that the current temperature increases are all that much in the greater swings the planet has had in the past. Sure certain regions will experience wild climate shifts, but I would rather adapt to a world that is a bit warmer than one that plunges back into another ice age. That would clearly mean wars and famine over much smaller farmable land to support a human population that is clearly unsustainable in such a scenario. I'm actually curious if human engineering can avoid the next ice age.

In my opinion, Earth has a quite effective CO2 removal system via rock weathering and the oceans. We just need to find the right balance. We do far more damage in other ways to the planet and ourselves than dumping CO2 into the air. Financially mineable carbonaceous deposits are a limited quantity on Earth and the CO2 will self correct eventually as supplies run out. Putting taxes on CO2 or other methods does nothing to the issue other than making certain individuals rich. There is insane taxation on cigarettes, yet so many people still smoke. Should we invest in clean, non-polluting technology? Yes we should, but cannot kid ourselves that carbonaceous deposits are a very convenient energy source.

I'd rethink my opinion about carbon taxation only if such funds went 100% into technology funding and/or energy price relief for low income people whose lives will be greatly impacted by such a tax, and not a single penny to government coffers, but that's pretty much the same thing as asking a politician not to lie.

blogfast25 - 2-12-2011 at 08:18

Bquirky:

The problem with a lot of Americans (though far from all) is that they abhor criticism of their country, which has to be dismissed as ‘antiamerican’ or ‘straight out beating’. You’re no different. As regards your dismissal of the simple fact that EB deniers are very rife in the US, you should perhaps read some of the finest US science/atheism blogs to get a better sense of it: there’s practically a war of words going on and both sides can boast impressive numbers. These are simple FACTS.

”Very little of the USA does not believe in Evolution.”… is simply kvetch. Quite a few Americans consider Evolutionary Biology antithetical to ‘Americanism’. I’ve spent far too much time ‘debating’ EB with loads of Americans to even remotely believe you. Many Americans that claim exactly what I claim express embarrassment at this sorry state of affairs but they certainly don’t deny it.

Sedit:

Are you also willing to discuss the finer points of quantum chromo dynamics? No, I didn’t think so (neither am I, BTW) Science is a peer reviewed knowledge base. I accept Evolutionary Biology without being a fully fledged expert on it: I don’t need to be; the way Big Science works I can accept certain things more or less at face value because it’s others that do the scrutinising.

Just pulling out of context a few graphs and adding your own blurb doesn’t make a refutation of the science of global climate change. The body of evidence and theory has become vast. Cherry picking to try and score points won’t impress anyone.

ScienceSquirrel - 2-12-2011 at 08:23

Cigarettes around here have gone from cheap as chips to insanely expensive.
We have gone from one of the highest percentage of smokers and heavy ones at that with high levels of lung cancer to a large minority of smokers. Bans in pubs, etc have helped as well.

Sedit - 2-12-2011 at 08:26

Quote: Originally posted by blogfast25

Bquirky:

Sedit:

Are you also willing to discuss the finer points of quantum chromo dynamics? No, I didn’t think so (neither am I, BTW) Science is a peer reviewed knowledge base. I accept Evolutionary Biology without being a fully fledged expert on it: I don’t need to be; the way Big Science works I can accept certain things more or less at face value because it’s others that do the scrutinising.

Just pulling out of context a few graphs and adding your own blurb doesn’t make a refutation of the science of global climate change. The body of evidence and theory has become vast. Cherry picking to try and score points won’t impress anyone.

That's my problem, the body of evidence is not nearly as vast as everyone seems to suggest. Its all subjective data lead by bias researchers. When someone truly takes it for face value after looking at the data itself the grandness of it all fades away to reveal that what we are seeing is not really out of the ordinary. As I said my views are open for change but nothing in this supposed vast body of evidence is worth a damn.

The vast body of evidence is nothing more then so called scientist doing exactly what you just criticized me for and that is to take a graph add a blurb of there own and call it a day. The only difference is there Blurb is funded by a bias organization the majority of the time and that is just bad science at its core. Cherry picking is exactly what Global warming hypothesis is all about the only difference is I call it bullshit and the majority of people call it science.

sxl168 - 2-12-2011 at 08:37

Quote: Originally posted by ScienceSquirrel

Cigarettes around here have gone from cheap as chips to insanely expensive.
We have gone from one of the highest percentage of smokers and heavy ones at that with high levels of lung cancer to a large minority of smokers. Bans in pubs, etc have helped as well.

I probably picked a bad example as the point I was trying to make is that you won't completely curb carbon use. Your point is correct and well taken, there is no question that tobacco use has dramatically declined.

Endimion17 - 2-12-2011 at 08:42

Quote: Originally posted by Sedit

You have a very distorted view of the USA dude, the majority of us dont believe in evolution? Where do you hear this shit from? The USA dont believe in GW? Again where does your information come from antiamerican terrorist pamphlets? You may want to research more about the USA before talking about it anymore because we are the ones over here laughing and pointing fingers right now.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main...

I doubt CBS is "antiamerican terrorist pamphlet". BTW I loathe (such a nice verb) the whole issue with using the word "terrorist" too much. It's simply insane and ridiculous.

Quote: Originally posted by m1tanker78

Endimion: You're free to share your misguided opinions about Americans, God and politics here (within forum rules). You paint the American picture with a VERY broad brush and a narrow mind.

Tank

Again, CBS.

Quote: Originally posted by Sedit

Don't get me wrong, I encourage Endimion to share his sentiment as it gives me a broader idea as how the world views the USA but at the same time if I hear incorrect information I will correct it as I see it.

Very little of the USA does not believe in Evolution. Yes I'm sure there is a very tiny subsection that claims to not believe and even in that religious subsection I'm pretty sure the vast majority of them know the truth and just do not want to admit it due to religious beliefs.

The USA did not censor out that episode the BBC did, and they did not do it because of the USA beliefs they made it and another behind the scenes episode optional for the entire world. The USA voted to include portions of the episode due to scheduling conflicts which is not at all uncommon while much of the world dropped them all together. This is not censorship this is just typical cable TV operations compounded by a desire to hate America so propaganda is placed out there by extremist bloggers.

CBS is America-hating private cable TV company?

Quote: Originally posted by bquirky

just straight out beating on the USA is intellectually lazy and says more about a general willingness to take the mainstream media at face value while building your world view.

any large population will have a subsequently large number of nuts. it just so happens that nuts get better raitings. and US nuts are broadcast world wide.

the US as a country has contributed vastly to the present modern state of science.
(building on a foundation provided by century's of work by European natural philosophers )

if you want to argue that AGW is gona kill us all then. great.
if you reject those claims and can articulate why then hazzaa.

but dont stoop down too "well _they_ dont believe in evolution man whada you expect"

it just makes you look like a dick.

I'm not trying to minimize American share in the development of science and technology. By all means, it's huge.
I'm just criticizing the public opinion. FYI, the public opinion is the catalyst for the whole government financing system. Dumbing down the people leads to the collapse of that system.

Quote: Originally posted by ScienceSquirrel

America is probably more religious than most West European countries.
Most West European politicians seldom mention their religious beliefs while it seems that American Presidential candidates, particularly Republican ones, have to prove their piety as a condition for office.
Fundamental Christianity is present in most West European countries but it is nowhere near the percentage in the US and it lacks anything like the financial firepower.
That said, the US is a country that occupies a large part of a continent and has States as diverse as California and Alaska in it.

That's the fundamental difference.

Quote: Originally posted by sxl168

There is insane taxation on cigarettes, yet so many people still smoke.[rquote]

Ciggarete taxes helped greatly. If you want to see what happens when there aren't so many repression methods, check Southeast Asia and other poor Asian countries. Those people smoke like mad. It's even considered normal for kids to smoke in some regions.
So yeah, it helped, and I encourage it.

[Edited on 2-12-2011 by Endimion17]

blogfast25 - 2-12-2011 at 08:47

Quote: Originally posted by Sedit

[That's my problem, the body of evidence is not nearly as vast as everyone seems to suggest. Its all subjective data lead by bias researchers. When someone truly takes it for face value after looking at the data itself the grandness of it all fades away to reveal that what we are seeing is not really out of the ordinary. As I said my views are open for change but nothing in this supposed vast body of evidence is worth a damn.

The vast body of evidence is nothing more then so called scientist doing exactly what you just criticized me for and that is to take a graph add a blurb of there own and call it a day. The only difference is there Blurb is funded by a bias organization the majority of the time and that is just bad science at its core. Cherry picking is exactly what Global warming hypothesis is all about the only difference is I call it bullshit and the majority of people call it science.

This just isn't worth refuting at all. It's standard climate change denial trope. Simply your own biased opinion.

sxl168 - 2-12-2011 at 08:54

I myself am in favor of tobacco taxation and public smoking bans. I just wasn't clear on my thought process and apologize for that. I never intended to start a flame on tobacco, so let's just stop that part here and now.

Sedit - 2-12-2011 at 08:56

Quote: Originally posted by Endimion17

Quote: Originally posted by Sedit

I have to agree I hate the over use of the word terrorist as well but I avoided my true thoughts in order to not offend in that it really sounds like Russian propaganda in all honesty.

Now if you look at how CBS conducts these polls you will see a flaw. The people have to be willing to answer the poll when the phone rings and I can assure you that when someone calls me or most other young people I know the answer is "I dont have time for telemarketers"....

This skews results to generally an older population. If you held the same poll for US citizens here on Sciencemadness do you think you would get anything close to the results they achieved by CBS? Likewise there poll is obviously bias because I can assure you that finding Americans that don't believe in Evolution is a tough task. Not impossible but no where near the roughly 2 out of every 3 like this poll suggest. I would be shocked to ask 100 people and come out with 5 that did not believe in evolution so something is obviously off with there poll.

And to answer your question, basically yes I don't really fell like the US media gives a fuck about its people all it cares about is its finances and if the person paying the bills believes in creationism you can bet that you are not going to see a poll where evolution wins. Its just a sick fact about media that thankfully the internet is tearing down that wall faster then one can say the word evolution.

blogfast25 - 2-12-2011 at 08:59

Quote: Originally posted by ScienceSquirrel

America is probably more religious than most West European countries.
Most West European politicians seldom mention their religious beliefs while it seems that American Presidential candidates, particularly Republican ones, have to prove their piety as a condition for office.
Fundamental Christianity is present in most West European countries but it is nowhere near the percentage in the US and it lacks anything like the financial firepower.
That said, the US is a country that occupies a large part of a continent and has States as diverse as California and Alaska in it.

Agreed with all points.

But regards the second one you really need to ask why this sorry state of affairs exists? And why piety seems to be connected [in the American political context] to denial of EB as a valid scientific paradigm?

The Roman Catholic Church, hardly a bastion of unbelievers or ‘progressivism’, has embraced evolutionary biology as valid science for quite a while now. Why are so many American believers so reluctant (‘recalcritrant’ would be a better term here) to accept what is essentially a very convincing scientific theory?

The US is also the country where some ‘scientists’ spun the quasi-theory of Intelligent Design out of whole cloth. ID has little to do with Creationism, yet many fundies support ID.

blogfast25 - 2-12-2011 at 09:14

Sedit:

Your criticism of this particular poll should be filed once again under ‘Sedit’s opinion’. To validly criticise the poll, you’d have to look at poll conditions, sample size, randomness, raw data treatment etc. Anything else is just fluff.

Finding Americans that reject EB is really easy: the American blogosphere is jam packed full of them. These people are very vocal and often complain about being ‘oppressed’ by ‘libruls’. Your claim is absurd. Like I said, I’ve had ‘debates’ with such people many times. Many who don’t outright deny EB told me to keep am ‘open mind’. Well, I’ll do that but considering the vast multi disciplinary evidence for evolution by natural selection (as opposed to Literal Scripture) I know what I put my money on.

You seem to forget the US ‘Culture Wars’: IMHO this refusal to accept EB ties in strongly with a considerable slice of the American public that perceives its way of life and worldview threatened by certain more ‘liberal’ leanings. EB, gay marriage, abortion and other ‘wedge issues’ are then perceived as manifestations of a kind of ‘modernity’ many conservative Americans reject ‘Taking back America for God’, as Newt Gingrich likes to put it: with attitudes like those it’s small wonder they feel EB has to be fought tooth and nail.

Sedit - 2-12-2011 at 09:21

I can pull up polls from all around the world that are coming up with the same results as those found in the CBS polls. Does this mean you or most of your friends believe in creationism?

I think it mainly boils down to fear implanted where its not so much that people believe in god, its more along the lines that they want to believe in god.

I abhor criticism of the USA not because I think its a good place but because almost everyone I hear criticizing it know little about what they are criticizing. Our government does not reflect our people anymore and neither does our media. To see these sort of polls and have the words labeled, USA believes in god, is just nonsense when most of the world gathers similar results.
Its a joke really. Look to see how Great Briton fairs in similar polls, look at similar polls taken in the USA. They are all subjective.

Half of Britons do not believe in evolution,

Does anyone in GB feel that this is the real general consensus with the people they know?

{edit}
Added link.

[Edited on 2-12-2011 by Sedit]

bquirky - 2-12-2011 at 09:30

"The problem with a lot of Americans"

Thats my point there ARE a lot of Americans. and a small percentage of a lot can still be a lot. (at least compared to where im from)

But ill happily conseed this point in favor of a more interesting discussion on peer review.
its possibly a sacred cow in these parts but ill go out on a limb.

I have published a very small handful of papers over the last few years in a non controversial field (nothing of any great note) and found the experience quite eye opening. Leading me to believe that many journals may be vulnerable to a kind of selection bias.

Not a personal and deliberate bias but a system wide phenomenon where lots of small forces add up to a noticeable effect.
I will attempt to list some of these small forces.

* for various reasons Having a manuscript published is desirable. (track record,grant money, prestige,ego etc etc)
* publication in a journal of higher impact factor is preferred
* journals with higher impact factors have many more submions than can be published
* journal editors will pick regular contributes as reviewers
* regular contributes to a journal will have a large body of relevant work in the field
* it is desirable to have a larger number of citations of previous work.
* it is considered 'good form' to cite regular contributors to the field as they are likely to be your reviewers and hence decided weather your work is fit to be published.

hence you cannot become a 'peer' able to preform reviews on work without previously subscribing to the views of the existing peers.

I believe that this all adds up to a selection bias generally in favor of previously published positions at the detriment of possibly valid work that contradicts previous longstanding contributors.

I Would put forward the argument that the current AGW debate is particularly susceptible to this kind of bias and hence the gold standard of 'peer review' is through no particular fault of anybody far far from flawless.

Endimion17 - 2-12-2011 at 09:31

Just a little info on the Roman catholic church opinion on evolution. I was raised in a RC family (not a very strict one), and my country belongs to its "civilization circle", RC messes with our government a lot, so I've got a good perspective about it.

The Roman catholic church, being the largest christian denomination, does not embrace the modern evolutionary theory per se.
It embraces that evolution happened (macro, micro, every piece), but they believe it was guided by the "wisdom and mercy of the Lord almighty".

Modern theory of evolution does not account for any deity, much less for a personal deity. The whole science doesn't, because it's not falsifiable and testable, and it's not proven. In the world of science, these things are just as useful as any island ghosts and goblins that require sacrifices in the form of pile of bananas.

Therefore, the scientific opinion, based on evidence and experiments, and RC opinion based on dogma, really do differ, but they overlap. In the Euler diagram sense, they overlap greatly (though the new Pope is trying to radicalize the whole thing again, as I've heard), much, much more than other denominations.

Small, fundamentalist congregations usually don't even come close to the scientific circle of Euler diagram.

[Edited on 2-12-2011 by Endimion17]

blogfast25 - 2-12-2011 at 10:00

bquirky:

Would you also make the same argument if the science involved was, say, quantum physics? Thought not...

There are strong similarities between American EB denial and American CC denial. In both cases the deniers perceive typical American 'values' (Capitalism and Religion) to be under threat. That leads to entrenched positions. 'Sacred houses' that have to be defended at all cost.

It doesn’t strike you as odd that the resistance to EB and CC is so fierce mainly in the US? Regards EB denial, here in Europe that’s limited to a few goofballs. I don’t really know of any religious blogs or even major publications that try and discredit EB in Europe. Almost the same with CC, there are sceptics within the European public and scientific establishment but far fewer than in the US.

Explain also why opposition to CC started to emanate from certain parts of the US even WAY before the science had arrived at certain conclusions. Ask yourself why these views are also far more embraced the more you move to the right of the American political spectrum? In Europe this is an almost 100 % cross partisan issue, with overwhelming acceptance of the science’s major conclusions by both sides of the aisle. So much so it practically puts ‘green parties’ out of business!

ScienceSquirrel - 2-12-2011 at 10:00

I went to a Roman Catholic School, it is the minority religion in Jersey, and evolution was taught as fact without any religious overtones in biology. We did national examinations, O and A levels, so they had to teach the syllabus.
The school did have a religious ethos, O level scripture was compulsory but the pass rate was terrible, A level was offered but no one took it while I was there.
The UK lacks many features of US religious life. The Church of England is the dominant Christian faith but it is lacking in fervour. The evangelists and charismatics are tiny sects, the antiabortion movement is tiny. There are no tele evangelists.
I suspect that because the US has no national church, a free market in religion exists and that allows all sorts of strange sects to thrive.

bquirky - 2-12-2011 at 10:06

Well QP makes testable predictions and is falsifiable

Sedit - 2-12-2011 at 10:19

""It doesn’t strike you as odd that the resistance to EB and CC is so fierce mainly in the US? Regards EB denial, here in Europe that’s limited to a few goofballs. I don’t really know of any religious blogs or even major publications that try and discredit EB in Europe. Almost the same with CC, there are sceptics within the European public and scientific establishment but far fewer than in the US.""

It's not a fierce debate and I am starting to question ya'lls media as much as I question our own. It its nothing more then a few goofballs here against EB yet it seems you folks in Europe have a totally different view of what its really like over here in the US. All we see and think when we hear about Great Briton is stuffy people with top hats and suits drinking tea and talking about the weather... How much you wanna bet our media image of GB is off

Endimion17 - 2-12-2011 at 10:57

Stuffy people with top hats? ROFL, I percieve GB through rock, punk, London tube, BBC, soccer, Scottish hills, city suburbs, Monty Python and "British humor" that I like very much.

I agree with blogfast25, fundamentalists are limited to few goofballs here in Europe, which don't have the public voice power. They are ignored, and if they become too loud, ridiculed. The general public doesn't even think of considering their opinion. They're marginalized, unlike in the US where "their opinion is also valid" and are given too much air time.
Too much political correctness leads to bullshit.

However, there are localized problems. I remember a great disturbance in our neighbour country, Serbia, a couple of years ago. Someone high in the government considered banning the evolution from the biology curriculum. It was a failed attempt.

I'm sure lots of people in Europe are just as dumb as well, but there's a public opinion that's pro-science in the terms of evolution. Public opinion is an emergent property of large masses of people in a system, and it's strong.

The point of evolution isn't just in the mere science. It has a sociological and philosophical impact, too. People are no longer unchangeable, static masters, but part of the nature. If more of us understood that, the world would be a better place.

[Edited on 2-12-2011 by Endimion17]

Polverone - 2-12-2011 at 11:54

This thread doesn't seem to be any more rigorous in practice than the other global warming thread, and about half of it is (predictably) politics. This never ends well.