Search This Blog

Thursday, July 26, 2007

Fallacies of Evolution - overview

Evolution-believers have no way of explaining the ex nihilo appearance of the Universe. They have no explanation for the formation of life from non-life. When you boil down what is said, it comes to nothing more than "it just happened by miraculous chance!" Ah, the wonders of science!

Young Earth Creationists believe the Bible account that gives God credit for the creation of the Universe and all life on Earth. Since we are able to observe the incredible "fine-tuning" of the Universe and the Earth to allow for life and since we are able to observe design in all living things, the Biblical account is far more logical than that of naturalistic evolution proponents.

The only reason that evolutionists prefer their far-fetched imaginings is that they cannot abide the idea of a Creator God. They are intent upon throwing the idea of God out the window without even a bit of consideration as to whether perhaps God indeed did create everything. They don't want to know. They are prisoners of a very narrow worldview that does not allow for the supernatural.

These are statements I have made and gone over many times in this blog. No evolutionist has yet given me one good reason to doubt these statements. Now let us go one step further and look at evolution itself, beginning with today's overview post.

Evolution - Change by means of natural selection

The basic premise of evolution is that after life somehow came from non-life, the first very primitive form of life began to form into more complex creatures until the vast array of life we see today came forth. One would think that if any form of life had managed to exist and reproduce, it would produce more of itself and continue to do so world without end. But evolution calls for change. Evolution must produce all myriad forms of life, so this primitive creature must change and branch out. How? Via favorable mutations selected by natural selection.

First, there must be mutations so that something other than the standard creature is produced. These mutations must be favorable so that the organism will survive. They must be able to be passed on to succeeding generations and they must be so favorable that they will live on in their descendants as conditions change going forward.




The American Heritage Science Dictionary
natural selection
The process by which organisms that are better suited to their environment than others produce more offspring. As a result of natural selection, the proportion of organisms in a species with characteristics that are adaptive to a given environment increases with each generation. Therefore, natural selection modifies the originally random variation of genetic traits in a species so that alleles that are beneficial for survival predominate, while alleles that are not beneficial decrease. Originally proposed by Charles Darwin, natural selection forms the basis of the process of evolution.


The above definition is correct to an extent, but with naturally one has see that it was written from an evolutionist viewpoint and about creatures we can observe today. The first creature wouldn't have been sophisticated enough to have alleles, for instance, since the highly complex genetic code itself needed to evolve over time, according to the evolutionists. So let us boil it down even further:

Natural selection is an observed process of nature in which, because of environment and other factors, some creatures are more likely to survive and reproduce than are others and it is the survivor/reproducers who are more likely to pass their genes to their offspring and on down to future generations.

mu·ta·tion (myōō-tā'shən) Pronunciation Key
n.
  1. The act or process of being altered or changed.
  2. An alteration or change, as in nature, form, or quality.
  3. Genetics
    1. A change of the DNA sequence within a gene or chromosome of an organism resulting in the creation of a new character or trait not found in the parental type.
    2. The process by which such a change occurs in a chromosome, either through an alteration in the nucleotide sequence of the DNA coding for a gene or through a change in the physical arrangement of a chromosome.
    3. A mutant.
Again, AHSD gives us a definition that is applicable to today in terms of how DNA works in modern organisms. One can only speculate by what means the first imagined sub-creatures could reproduce and mutate, since this cannot be observed in the fossil record or in living creatures today. All life uses the DNA code, period.

Evolution comes in two flavors!

There is microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution, if you like the term, is what is observed and happens all around us on this planet. It leads to speciation within groups of creatures and also what evolutionists term "adaptive radiation" in which different branches of the same kind of animal become isolated and changed to the point they cannot even interbreed or have great difficulty doing so. We'll get back to this later.

Macroevolution is what evolutionists claim as the mechanism by which all life flowed from the first primitive simple creature. Untold billions and billions of mutations worked on by natural selection would eventually form new creatures, then more new creatures, and so on until we have what we see in nature today. This is, of course, a ridiculous idea in the extreme!

The flavors are "real" and "imaginary"

Microevolution is real. The appearance of Poodles and Newfoundlands and Dachshunds from the earlier types of dog is microevolution. So is the changing of the styles of beaks on Galapagos Island finches. One is managed by man, the other occurs due to changes in environment but they both happen the same way....loss of information!

Yes, dog breeders selected dogs for certain traits that they wanted in their breed and would only breed those animals. Other animals were not bred. Therefore, the gene pool of Poodles began to filter out traits not wanted by Poodle breeders. Some genetic information was intentionally avoided until, within the breed of Poodle dogs, it cannot any longer be found. There is less genetic information found within a Poodle than there would be in a Poodle-Newfoundland mix because both breeds deliberately selected for certain traits and selected other traits out. But in the mixing of the two breeds there are possibilities for characteristics not found in Poodles or not found in Newfoundlands that may show up and be passed forward by the Newfoodle offspring.

Whew! In any event, this kind of thing happened to Darwin's Finches. He saw beaks of differing shapes and sizes depending upon the environment and deduced that environmental concerns had selected the best beak for the job and the creature had been changed. Had he remained there for the remainder of his life, he may have seen that since the Finches are not terribly isolated, as climatic conditions would vary, so would the beaks, as the genetic information for different beaks remained within the gene pool.

Yes, all creatures have rich genetic codes that have information that can produce large and small, black and white, all sorts of different choices for the creatures. What we call speciation is the gene pool growing smaller or losing information so that only certain features can still be selected. A Poodle has less information within the genetic code than did his ancestor of 500 years ago. Information has been lost, and this has been observed and documented thoroughly. This is real.

Imaginary is another term for Macroevolution. In Macroevolution, a mutation has to occur that is not only so favorable to the creature that it makes the creature more likely to survive, it has to be a mutation that is passed along within the genetic code. There are many problems with this idea but here are three of the most insurmountable.

1) Mutations are almost always fatal or at least a hindrance to the creature

2) Mutations are not usually embedded within the genetic code in such a way that they can be passed on.

3) This requires an addition to the information carried within the genes. That has never been observed to happen.

You see, a mutation is a mistake. It usually involves loss of information (or at least the garbling of the information) within the gene. Yet, in order for mutations to add new and previously unheld characteristics to the creature, a mutation has to be an addition to the information held within that creature. Genetic information is not random, it is structured.

Information is orderly

You don't hurl a bomb at a DC-10 to make a 747, you have to design and build it. This is why macroevolution is the imaginary evolution. It depends upon the mistakes of mutation to create new structured information to input into the genetic structure. No one has ever observed this to happen! It is illogical that it could ever happen. Yet, for evolution to have produced life today it would have had to happen so many billions upon billions of times without any guiding force or mechanism behind it down through millions and millions of years.

Evolutionist will say that natural selection is the force, the engine, but they are wrong. Natural selection isn't a force, or a designer. It is merely an observation of the process by which creatures have been designed to be able to adapt to changing environments and continue to reproduce. God, who designed the genetic code, designed it to be so information-rich that fish could live in cold salt water and very warm inland freshwater lakes. So that Bears could be Polar or Sun Bears.

Lets make it simple: (Macro) Evolution requires information gain within the genetic code. Information gain does not happen, nor is it logical that it would happen. Therefore, evolution as macroevolution is not observed because it will never be observed because it just isn't going to happen, nor has it ever happened. Don't let the operation of natural selection within a kind of animal mislead you into following the error of the Darwin way!


Wednesday, July 25, 2007

Creeper versus Radar: The Movie

I am posting a comment and then commenting on that comment, with my words now in blue...for those who are unfamiliar with the long, long discussions on this blog, creeper is a long-time commenter with whom I have often disagreed. Unfortunately the discussion has become personal in that he has accused me of being a liar:

Anonymous said...

1. First of all, thank you for being honest about the fact that you simply made the 11% up.

I didn't "make it up" but rather, as I explained, saw no poll specific to the question in Barna and tried to do some math to come up with an approximate number. My later post shows that the estimate was way too high, but I was using the Barna figures rather than just making something up.

I'm still a little puzzled why a "quick and off-hand guess", as you put it, would result in something like 11%, instead of a round number, like, say, 10% or 15%. I suspect that you "calculated" it somehow, but later realized that your calculations were simply wrong.

I hoped you were capable of reading the entire post, "Debates, we have debates! Christians in US prisons? " in which I go over the numbers?

Not that it matters; your admission that it was fiction settles the matter much as we suspected.

You were the guys who gave some ridiculous number like 76% of the prison population was Christian...I used published polling numbers which were not specific and tried to use them to come up with a figure based upon them. If there was any fiction, it was the 76%, which was probably some guy finding that number associated with the entire country and then applying it to jail populations.

2. I take it that you're now happy to characterize the US as a secular nation, not a Christian nation?

Wow, who is trying to be deceptive now? The polling numbers show that the USA is a religious nation that associates itself more with Christianity than other religions, even if most of them are not actually Christians, and that a very small percentage are secularists.

I mean, 9%... that's not exactly a million miles away from the number of full-on atheists, is it? And a whole lotta confused people who think they're Christians but aren't... They go to church and all that (at least so they say), but for you they just don't count... They will not be happy campers when they find themselves in hell.Secular nation it is.

It would be hard to say what percentage of those who associate themselves with Christianity are actually born again. Get this straight, "Christian" = disciple. There are plenty of people who have named the name of Christ and believed in Him but don't care to try to live their lives out for Him.

If I were in charge of polling I could ask the questions that would sort these numbers out, but I'm not so I can only use Barna or a similar poll to try to figure out the numbers. Maybe there are 9% of the population who are disciples. Is the percentage of non-disciple believers somewhere around 15% or so? The numbers are hard to interpret since the questions are not asked properly. But 76.5% of the population associate themselves with Christianity somehow, which means that we are not a secular society, we are a religious one.


3. "Not sure why that is such an issue for some of these commenters. But I will tackle this, since Creeper has been kind enough to focus on one issue and stay there, rather than sending us off down a rabbit trail."Seeing as I listed this as part of a lengthy list, I don't see why it needs to be a priority over all the other issues. It was merely a nicely visible example of you making stuff up and using self-serving definitions as the wind blows. Your confession is appreciated.

I confessed nothing. You are being deceitful.

4. Radar now: "I have tried to find a percentage of evangelicals in prison and have not succeeded. I suspect that, due to the nature of the description of an evangelical, that most evangelicals found in prison were converted after incarceration. I would welcome a good source of information that could nail that down more thoroughly but so far haven't found one."

Radar not so long ago: "My figures show that up to 11% of the prison population is Christian, many of whom were converted after being jailed." ("A town where God was not allowed (or, an EAE paradise)")Does this count as bearing false witness? Is lying okay with you?And if lying is okay with you, does that mean you're still one of those "real" Christians you're talking about? Or is it okay if you're doing it for Jesus? (One of those weird "absolute laws"...)

Lying? You are spinning this whole thing very deceptively, probably because you wish to take attention away from the issues that make you uncomfortable. I have already explained in detail that I was estimating that number based on figures found in Barna which means that I was certainly neither lying nor making something up. Second, that statement is true. "Up to" means "equal to or less than" and the numbers I have found and posted in "Debates, we have debates! Christians in US prisons? " do, in fact tell us that the number of Christians in jail populations is less than 11%, thus making my statement factual. Therefore, what I posted was true based upon the information I could glean from the resources at hand and I will stand by that statement and the contents of my subsequent post in which I drilled down on those numbers to come up with a better estimate if possible.

5. "Let's see, first, I was hoping to debate on more interesting issues like how does a naturalistic atheistic evolutionist explain the ex nihilo appearance of 1) matter and 2) life?"Well, I was just responding to some of those points yesterday (see the comments on your post "Why did the Ice Core man get 'Iced'?"), so respond whenever you'd like. For starters, who says matter came from non-matter (ex nihilo)?

Why would you post comments on a recent post back on an old one like that? I'll take a look eventually (maybe the weekend), but my recent posts like "Can science and Christianity mix? " and "But is evolution actually science?? " is where that particular discussion is now and I you didn't respond there other than to say you could easily debate me and then slip away.

Why would you go back to Ice Man to debate other issues? Is it because you want to keep discussing ice cores and get away from the real issues? You want to display a big face on a wall and ignore the man behind the curtain? You did mention you had work issues, and I understand that, but if you really have some good stuff to say, say it up front where the discussion is rather than burying it way back on old posts somewhere.


I also notice that you don't mention wanting to discuss other matters, such as a young Earth being supported by tree rings and ice cores. Let me guess: you realized that that doesn't add up for a YEC position either..."Or why won't they acknowledge that they are beginning their interpretations of evidence from a point of view (some of them do, but many run from this) but instead try to pretend that they have the only point of view?"I think we've addressed this numerous times, Radar: yes, there are plenty of world views, and we're absolutely not averse to acknowledging that we have points of view, contrary to your claim. When it comes to science, however, the world views stay at the door, and certain methods are used - by Christians, Jews, what have you. These methods were even used by all the non-atheist scientists you listed not so long ago.

I have posted many quotes and comments from scientists that refutes what you are saying about world views. I have come to realize that you are too stubborn to admit that you filter through a world view, or you are just incapable of seeing it, or you fear to admit it because it brings in secondary questions you don't wish to acknowledge, let alone answer. I guess there is no point discussing it with you in this case. Talk about fallacies, you live in one!

They are put in place so that one can compare findings instead of constantly "agreeing to disagree", which would bring scientific progress to a screeching halt. This is why large numbers of Christians, Jews etc. freely engage in the scientific method while keeping their religious beliefs at home.The only people for whom this is a problem are people like yourself who have a preconceived notion of what the results should be and are disappointed when the facts don't match their views.

Hahahahahaha! This is a classic pot-calling-the-kettle-black. Preconceived notion is your middle name.

Believe me, if YECs could present a 6,000 year timeline that actually could account for ice cores, tree rings, and radiometric dating, I would be quite interested and open-minded.

I don't believe it for a minute. So far you have ignored any evidences that would disagree with your world view entirely.

The chances of such a timeline being created in light of the overwhelming evidence indicating an old Earth are vanishingly small at this point, of course, even if you did claim, for some odd reason that I can't fathom, that you had provided a link to it. What was that about?

It was about giving you a chance to look at evidences that are at odds with your belief system.

-- creeper

When you call a man a liar deceptively, that makes you the liar. I am publically challenging your statement. I have shown evidence that I did not lie. Until and unless you repent and admit your fault I consider you a liar and a fraud for making that charge against me.

Saturday, July 21, 2007

Debates, we have debates! Christians in US prisons?

"It's your lack of willingness to debate (instead simply avoiding questions and pushing forward with new topics instead of engaging the issues raised) that makes a dialogue difficult. For example, why claim your "opinion" that there are only 11% Christians in the prison population when you have no data to base this on, and apparently no way to defend your reasoning? Could it be because you don't feel confident in an actual debate?"

Thus saith Creeper.

Let's see, first, I was hoping to debate on more interesting issues like how does a naturalistic atheistic evolutionist explain the ex nihilo appearance of 1) matter and 2) life? Or why won't they acknowledge that they are beginning their interpretations of evidence from a point of view (some of them do, but many run from this) but instead try to pretend that they have the only point of view? I try to stay on the biggest side of the issues. The percentage of Christians in jails? That seems pretty irrelevant. Not sure why that is such an issue for some of these commenters. But I will tackle this, since Creeper has been kind enough to focus on one issue and stay there, rather than sending us off down a rabbit trail.

WHAT IS THE PERCENTAGE OF CHRISTIANS IN JAIL POPULATIONS?

Before we go into this, we need to define terms. What is the definition of "Christian?" I would say a Christian, which means "Christ-like", must be a born-again believer who is attempting to live for God. That is how I define myself and the general group of people who attend my church, at least those that I know.

The Bible, which must be considered the authority in this matter, says this:

Acts 11:25&6- "Then Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul, 26and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch."

Here the Bible is stating that disciple=Christian. Disciple means to be someone who is dedicated to a certain discipline. It isn't a matter of just attending church or being born into a family where once a relative used to be a Presbyterian. It isn't simply a matter of sorting people into demographics, like you are either a Christian or a Jew or a Muslim.

There are only two other verses in the Bible that use this term. I will list them...

Acts 26:28 - "Then Agrippa said to Paul, "Do you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to be a Christian?"

King Agrippa was very aware of the Christian movement and in this passage is acknowledging that being a Christian would require a choice rather than being a matter of, say, birth or heritage of some sort.

I Peter 4:16 - "However, if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but praise God that you bear that name."

Here the idea of being a Christian is associated with a lifestyle that might cause one to be persecuted in some way. Being persecuted in those days often meant perhaps even being tortured and killed. Christians are still being tortured and killed in places in Africa and Asia primarily but, here in the States, the worst we usually get is a bit of derision or prejudicial treatment.

In any event, by usage among Christians and by the Bible definition, Christian most definitely means to be a disciple of Christ. Now lets look at some polling numbers from Barna.

  • Looking across the past decade we find the following percentages of born again Christians:

    2006 - 45% 2005- 40% 2004-38% 2002-40% 2001- 41% 2000- 41% 1999- 40% 1998- 39% 1997- 43% 1996-39% 1995-35% 1994- 36% 1993-36% 1992- 40% 1991- 35%

    There are approximately 101 million born again Christians. (2006)

Wow, that is a big number! But you look within the numbers and you see that there is a problem with the definition of "Christian."

  • Half of born again Christians (46%) agree that Satan is "not a living being but is a symbol of evil." (2005)
That cuts the 45% in half, since this is an unbiblical view and directly contradicts the teaching of Christ. Remember, a Christian is a disciple of Christ!

  • About one-third of born agains (33%) believe that if a person is good enough they can earn a place in Heaven. (2005)
This directly contradicts Jesus, who said that, "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." So that would eliminate 33% right there.
  • 28% of born agains agree that "while he lived on earth, Jesus committed sins, like other people," compared to 42% of all adults. (2005)
That eliminated 28%.
  • Born again Christians are more likely than non-born again individuals to accept moral absolutes. Specifically, 32% of born agains said they believe in moral absolutes, compared to just half as many (15%) among non-born agains. (2002)
Only 32% believe in moral absolutes. That would take 45% down to 14.4% just by itself, without adding the disclaimers. How are we to know what percentage of the population is actually Christian?????

Well, only 8% identify themselves as "Evangelical Christians" and that may be a fair number. To be an evangelical Christian who believes in evangelizing, well, that is part of discipleship. This demographic chart online gives a number of people identifying themselves as Christians in the USA as 76.5% and yet Evangelicals come in at only 8%. That means that about 10% of those who call themselves Christians could be expected to actually meet the Biblical definition, if that.

Barna states that 9% of the population are Evangelicals. Here are some related findings:
  • Of the five faith segments (evangelicals, non-evangelical born again Christians, notional Christians, adherents of non-Christian faiths, and atheists/agnostics), evangelicals were the most likely to do each of the following:
  • discuss spiritual matters with other people.
  • volunteer at a church or non-profit organization.
  • discuss political matters with other people.
  • discuss moral issues and conditions with others.
  • stop watching a television program because of its values or viewpoints.
  • go out of their way to encourage or compliment someone
So my definition of Christian, and the Bible's, is most closely associated today with the term, "Evangelical." Trying to find a percentage of evangelicals in jail is hard, since most of them seem to be either part of a ministry TO inmates, if they are in the US, or have been jailed in foreign lands simply for the crime of BEING and evangelical!

I now suspect my quick and offhand guess at 11% was way too high. Maybe more like 1%. Here is another voice:

Prison Incarceration and Religious Preference

Here are some excerpts:

In the federal prisoner statistics, a full 20% of the respondents either answered "none" or provided no response to the question on religious affiliation. Based on response patterns to similar questions on nationwide surveys, it is likely that all or nearly all of these persons would be in the "nonreligious" category (or the "atheists" category, to use the terminology from the atheist web page itself). Even without adding the ".209%" of the population that specifically identified themselves as atheists, the segment of the prison population which self-identifies as non-religious is approximately twice as large as found in the general population.

Texas Department of Criminal Justice, 1999

Source: Peggy Fikac. "More prison inmates say they're Baptist than any other religion." Associated Press (The Abilene Reporter-News)
Baptist     39,781   30.3%
Unknown* 28,890 22.0%
Catholic 23,637 18.0%
Other 39,009 29.7%
-------- ------- ------
Total 131,316 100.0%

* Unknown: "22 percent are categorized as 'unknown,' representing inmates who didn't say or didn't care when asked for their religious denomination." Most of these would be classified functionally in the "nonreligious" category.

* Other: "The rest of the inmates are divided among the categories of Christian Church, Methodist, Church of Christ, Pentecostal, Muslim, Protestant, Jewish, non-denominational, no religious preference and other."


The passage below [source: Christine Wicker. "Dumbfounded by divorce" in Dallas Morning News, 2000; URL: http://195.7.48.75/release/new/dallas/morning/dallasreligion/p1s5m.htm] is indicative of how prevalent it is for people to cite a religious preference, even if they are not religious:

There might be... reason to question Mr. Barna's survey and many other studies of religious people the hazards of self-identification.

Bill Johnson... and his second wife, Donna, co-teach Rebuilders, Prestonwood Baptist's ministry to remarried couples... Mr. Johnson is also a therapist and federal probation officer. His work experience has caused him to note that it's awfully popular to be Baptist. "When I interview criminals going into prison or coming out of prison, most of them are Baptists," he said, laughing. "Everybody seems to be a Baptist, even if they're not religious or Christian."

~~~~~~~

We are aware of two non-academic web pages, featuring commentary by self-described atheists, which attempt to present statistics in such a way as to indicate that religion leads to crime and incarceration. Some of these statements are addressed here, but that is not the focus of this page. Such a notion hardly requires refutation: available statistics, academic studies (as opposed to positional essays by atheists), and common experience attest otherwise.

Religious proponents, on the other hand, often use statistics relating to religiosity to show that religious participation prevents crime and incarceration.

The statistically verifiable reality should come as no surprise to those who have first hand experience with criminal and religious sociology:

1. The majority of Americans (85%) have a stated religious preference.

2. The majority of American prisoners (between 80 and 100%, depending on the study consulted) also have a stated religious preference.

3. A disproportionately high number of prisoners were not in any way practicing religionists prior to incarceration. That is, they exhibited none of the standard sociological measures of religiosity, such as regular prayer, scripture study, and attendance at worship services.

Thus, some commentators on one side have claimed that being religious is associated with incarceration. This is based only on religious preference statistics. American sociologists are well aware that nearly all Americans profess a religious preference. But there is a major difference between those who are actually religious affiliated, that is, members of a congregation (approx. 45 to 65% of the population, varying by region), and those who merely profess a preference, likely the name of the denomination that their parents of grandparents were a part of. (One of the best discussions of this phenomenon can be found in The Churching of America, 1776-1990, by Roger Finke and Rodney Stark; New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1992.)

Commentators supportive of religious involvement invariably point to participation in religion (being affiliated), rather than having a stated (and quite possibly meaningless) religious preference as showing being a statistically strong deterent to crime.

~~~~~~~

I have tried to find a percentage of evangelicals in prison and have not succeeded. I suspect that, due to the nature of the description of an evangelical, that most evangelicals found in prison were converted after incarceration. I would welcome a good source of information that could nail that down more thoroughly but so far haven't found one.

But evangelicals have founded scores of ministries aimed at converting prisoners to Christ and reducing the recidivism rates of prisoners and changing lives. I have a couple of good friends who work in that ministry, one of whom has been doing it for better than 15 years. He would tell you that very few evangelicals commit crimes that take them to prison, but often prisoners can be converted. You know the old saying, "no atheists in foxholes" also applies to a lesser extent to the prison population.

So now I have addressed this matter at length. This means I can now go back to more important matters and I will do so with the next post.











Friday, July 20, 2007

Dear NFL - A fan speaks out about Mike Vick


Dear NFL,

I have watched the news and read all the various statements being made by the Falcons, The NFL , Arthur Blank and the AKC. I've also read the 18-page indictment. Now, I want to give you a message from me and my wife and family....and also a message on behalf of our dogs.

This is a dog...Our smallest and youngest dog. Faith is about 50 pounds, a Border Collie/German Shepard/Husky mix. She is loving and fun and smart. She is the kind of dog that dog fighters steal, or get from the pound, to use as fodder for dogs they are teaching to be crazed warriors. We also have an 80-pound Chow and a 120 pound Pointer/Rottweiler who stands 27" at the shoulder. We obviously love dogs.

So understand this. We will not spend a penny on the NFL as long as Mike Vick is allowed to practice and play in the NFL. No more trips to games, no more purchases of the NFL TV package on our satellite TV, no more buying Bears t-shirts and hoodies and so on...zip. nada. We are not alone, I am sure. There currently are 74.8 million dogs in the USA. (American Pet Products Manufacturers Association (APPMA) 2007-2008 National Pet Owners Survey.) The number of dog-owning homes was estimated by the Kansas City Star at 68 million. I cannot imagine that very many of these millions of dog owners will have the tiniest bit of tolerance for a league in which Mike Vick is allowed to participate.

Is Michael Vick innocent of the charges until proven guilty? Of course, that is the legal standard and a sign of the greatness of our nation. However, the indictments are a witness to Vick's intimate involvement in dog fighting whether or not he is guilty of each individual charge and whether or not he is convicted. He should not be jailed unless and until he is convicted. But he has forfeited his right to participate in the NFL by his bad behavior. The NFL is family entertainment. I won't disgust and horrify my audience by sharing pictures of dogs after a fight, but I guarantee you that anyone who understands what dog fighting entails should be able to see why the NFL doesn't want to be associated with the practice in any way, shape or form.

Roger Goodell, you suspended Tank Johnson and PacMan Jones and Chris Henry for activities detrimental to the league. But not one of them was a megastar like Vick. If Chris Henry can go down for simply adding a traffic stop to his previous troubles, how can you not suspend Mike Vick for being involved in such a heinous mess of cruelty and evil?

Every dog owner and every dog lover is watching. Will the NFL allow fame and fortune to trump common decency? If so, they will have lost my business and my respect....and I bet you those who stand with me will number in the millions!

This just in....

Tuesday, July 17, 2007

What is this #&*!??? Global Dumbing conspiracy?

Could it be that people have been deliberately placing weather stations where the temperature will read higher than it should? Here is some evidence from a couple of people monitoring this phenomenon:

First, Ponder the Maunder presents:

A reminder to support the project at Surfacestations.org!

Eastport Maine temperature station that has the temperature sensor 2 feet downwind of the air conditioner exhaust.

eastportfulls.jpg

There I am feeling the heat from this Eastport Maine temperature station air conditioner.

Remember the photo of the thermometer 2 feet down wind from the air conditioner exhaust that I posted on my site 3 weeks ago before I went on vacation?

eastportpamscrop.jpg

Can you think of a problem that is more real?

Or how about this rooftop temperature station in Presque Isle, Maine that was posted in the same article?

temperature_sensor_presque_isle_maine.jpg

Since some people just don’t believe in reality, I would challenge Eli to come to Maine and help me find one single surface station in this state that is any good.

Send along a phone number, Eli.

Kristen.

Scholarship Fund and Science Foundation

Follies in Measuring Global Warming

lewistonfromeast2.jpg

Details of temperature stations that are being used to measure global warming. WHAT A JOKE! This link will take you to GlobalWarmingHoax.com that reprints all of my work with 20,000 times the traffic capacity.

j_hansen.jpg

Senior Scientist at NASA GISS and Al Gore’s Scientific Advisor, James Hansen: Will his history of allowing money and politics to affect his science stop him from fixing the recently discovered human errors in the temperature record as photographed by researchers? How you can help.

algore.jpg

A point by point critique of Al Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth

3/29/07 Ponder the Maunder

headerpic.jpg

Ponder the Maunder was an extra credit project for Honors Earth Science, Portland High School, by Kristen Byrnes of Portland Maine.
This report is a comprehensive look at the global warming issue without financial or political bias. It uses the most updated information provided by scientists and researchers and interjects common sense, an important component missing from the global warming debate.

Could a high school student actually know more about climatology and be more comprehensible than Al Gore? Maybe yes...



Then there is the Watt's up with that? site...

uly 09, 2007

How not to measure temperature, part 19

In traveling around California and Nevada to look at NOAA USHCN climate monitoring weather stations I've seen some odd things. I've seen temperature sensors near asphalt and concrete, sensors placed within feet of buildings and cars, sensors placed near air conditioner exhausts, and sensors that had barbeque grills in the vicinity.

Last Friday June 6th, I traveled to Santa Rosa, CA to the Press Democrat Newspaper, a wholly owned subsidiary of the New York Times, which according to NOAA, has the climate station of record for Santa Rosa.

SantaRosa_Press_Democrat_Building.JPG

I figured it would be a fairly straightforward survey, and that I'd probably find the temperature sensor near the back of the building by the parking lot, as I've found many others placed. I figured it would look a lot like our local newspaper, the Chico Enterprise Record (owned by Media News Group), weather station. It is in the rear, in a bit of disrepair, missing some slats and part of its roof assembly, but otherwise ok. It is seen below:

ER-wxstation.JPG

But nothing prepared me for what I was about to find at the Santa Rosa Press Democrat.

When I arrived, I couldn't locate the NOAA MMTS sensor anywhere around the building, but I did see a tower on the roof of the building, and in the rear of the building they had a Davis Vantage Pro2 weather station on a pole. I knew that wasn't the official climate temperature sensor provided by NOAA. So, after doing a perimeter search twice, I went inside to inquire within. Everything in the lobby said "go away". I guess it was the bullet proof glass, and the cameras, and the security guard. After getting a name of the person resonsible for their weather page from the front desk, I called on my cell phone, no answer.

Undeterred, I decided to try looking outside again. It was then I noticed the 5 level parking garage about a block north.

From the top of the parking garage a quick scan with my binoculars located the NOAA MMTS temperature sensor. It was there, about 8-10 feet above the roof, surrounded by a sea of air conditioners and exhaust vents!

Here is what I saw from my binoculars:

SantaRosa_Press_Democrat_MMTS.JPG

And here is a panorama of the entire rooftop of the Press Democrat. Click on the image to get a full sized view with panning functions:

SantaRosa_PressDemocrat_rooftop_panorama.JPG

A complete photo essay is available on my surfacestations.org website.

An independent check of aerial photos that I had access to confirmed the placement of the sensor in the middle of several air conditioning units.

SantaRosa_Press_Democrat_aerialview.JPG

I've seen some poorly thought out places to measure temperature, but this one takes the cake. Not only do we have the sensor above a sea of air conditioners with warm air exhausts, there are two rooftop building exhausts, plus the roof and building itself, and then lets not forget that the Press Democrat itself is in a sea of buildings in downtown Santa Rosa, all of which to contribute to the Urban Heat Island (UHI) the thermometer is exposed to.

Yes folks, this is an official USHCN Climate station of record. The data from this station goes into the national climatic database. But given the absurd and irresponsible placement of this NOAA MMTS thermometer, is it any wonder at all that the graph of temperature at Santa Rosa looks like it does?

SantaRosa_GISS_station_plot.gif This isn't a case of gradual encroachment by localized site changes that happened around the thermometer, like what happened in Marysville. This is a deliberate placement of an official thermometer in the worst possible measurement scenario. Somebody had to choose this location, the building and air conditioners did not grow up around it.

July 08, 2007

How not to measure temperature, part 18

On Friday June 6th, I made a trip though northern California to visit four official climate monitoring stations that are part of the US Historical Climatological Network (USHCN) which has been the subject of study on my photographic database website www.surfacestations.org

Here is the Napa State Hospital, which has a long history of observing temperature and precipitation. The MMTS and rain gauge are located at the Fire Station that serves the hospital grounds:
Napa_State_Hospital_Overall.JPG

Here we see what seems to be the ubiquitous close by parking which has been almost as a theme in recent station surveys. Lots of asphalt surrounding the sensor too, and a building about 10 feet away. This of course makes the station out of compliance with NOAA siting specifications.

Another view shows an even greater problem; an air conditioner unit mounted at the same height as the MMTS in a window and a mere 10 feet away:

Napa_State_Hospital_detail.JPG

You can see a full set of pictures, at the surfacestations.org image database.

For an independent confirmation of this finding you can see the National Weather Service's web page photo of Napa.

More pictures from my 4 station survey trip will be posted each day, tomorrow, Santa Rosa's USHCN climate station of record located on the roof of the Press Democrat building in downtown Santa Rosa.



June 23, 2007

How not to measure temperature, part 12

One of the really odd discoveries that I've made while surveying climate monitoring stations around the USA is the fact that many of the official stations are located at sewage treatment plants. For example, the one in Colusa, CA is at their sewage treatment plant. I've visited it.

A couple of volunteers for www.surfacestations.org have been going around Washington and Oregon locating stations there and have also reported a number of stations at waste-water treatment facilities. I'll get to why locating a temperature monitoring station at these facilities is a really bad idea later, but first I want to tell you why many of them are located at these places.

It has to do with the fact that somebody must read the thermometer once a day, write down the max and min temperatures for the last 24 hours in a logbook, then send in the page of the logbook to the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) once a month. When stations were assigned to cities, they needed to locate them at a place where there was somebody 7 days a week. Sewage is a 24/7 operation. Police and fire stations have some stations for the same reason, somebody is always there.

Ok this picture comes in today from from surfacestations.org volunteer Steve Tiemeier, who visited the climate station of record located at the Urbana, Ohio Waste Water Treatment Plant:

Urbana_WWTP_Detail_South_View.jpg

The small item in the center of the picture labeled "MMTS" is the temperature sensor that is used to submit monthly climate reports to NCDC.

Now in case you don't see some of the obvious problems with this location and why its a terrible place to measure temperature, I'll list them one by one:

- Sensor is attached to the building, just mere inches away from brickwork
- Sensor is near windows, which radiate heat from heated interior rooms in winter
- Sensor is directly above effluent grates for waste-water, Waste-water is often warmer than the air many months of the year
- Sensor is between three buildings, restricting wind flow
- Sensor is between three buildings, acting as a corner reflector for infrared
- Several exhaust fans near sensor, even though one is disable, there are two more on the walls (silver domes)
- Air conditioner within 35 feet of sensor, enclosed area will tend to trap the exhaust air near sensor
- Sensor is directly over concrete slab
- Refrigeration unit nearby, exhausts air into the enclosed area
- Shadows of all buildings create a valley effect related to sunlight at certain times
- There are two nearby digester pools, which release heat and humidity in the sensor vicinity
- Heat and humidity plume over the site from digesters is often tens of degrees warmer than the air in the wintertime

Here is wider view that shows the temperature sensor in relation to the digester tank:
Urbana_WWTP_Digester.jpg

More picture on my image database here: http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php?g2_itemId=5322

I don't know if any readers of this blog have ever driven by a sewage treatment plant in the winter, in the midwest, as I have, but I can tell you from experience it looks like a hot springs with steam rising into the air.

Talk about your urban heat island effect...not only that, sewage treatment plants effluent volume is a direct indicator of population growth. So as more water is treated, more local effects from the heat/humidity plume occur, which can affect the temperature readings.

There are dozens, possibly hundreds of USHCN climate monitoring stations sited at sewage treatment plants around the USA. I'll have more reports on this in the future.

Who knew? I've been working in meteorology 25 years and I didn't until this week.

here are some other stations at a sewage treatment plants:

http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php?g2_itemId=1489

http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php?g2_itemId=4658

http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php?g2_itemId=4388

|

Here's another one:

une 03, 2007

How not to measure temperature, part 6

Ok folks, just when you think I could not possibly post any worse pictures of official climate stations, I yet again have more. I’d like to point out that I’ve only surveyed about 10 stations in California so far, and what you see posted here represents samples from those.

It gives you an idea of the magnitude of the problem.

Ok here is Tahoe City California, GISS ID 425724880010 and an active station of record. I was unable to locate the observer for this station but was able to speak with the property management people for the nearby condos.

Tahoe_city1.jpg

The first picture is looking south over lake Tahoe. BTW the van is not mine, but belongs to the groundskeeper, and yes that's where he parks it regularly. Note the doggie bags. There's a walking path nearby.

tahoe_city2.jpg

Next picture, looking north, whats that, a tennis court within 25 feet of the station? Horrors.

Tahoe_city3.jpg

Final picture. It seems the groundskeeper likes to burn the trash and paper he picks up on the grounds, guess where he does it?

Honest folks, I couldn’t make this stuff up if I tried.

The property management person I spoke with said the tennis court and condos was built in the early 80’s.

Here is the GISS plot, showing the data trends used in NASA's Model E global Climate computer model

Tahoe_city4.jpg

Note the jump and sustained plateau of temperature after 1980. Tennis anyone?





Monday, July 16, 2007

Global (warming) Dumbing is losing momentum

Thanks to Lobo in OK who has kindly shared some environmental links with us. Here is an article worth reading if you think that Al Gore knows what the heck he is talking about (he doesn't) or that the whole man-made global warming scare is based on scientific consensus (it isn't).

Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics

Growing Number of Scientists Convert to Skeptics After Reviewing New Research

Following the U.S. Senate's vote today on a global warming measure (see today's AP article: Senate Defeats Climate Change Measure,) it is an opportune time to examine the recent and quite remarkable momentum shift taking place in climate science. Many former believers in catastrophic man-made global warming have recently reversed themselves and are now climate skeptics. The names included below are just a sampling of the prominent scientists who have spoken out recently to oppose former Vice President Al Gore, the United Nations, and the media driven “consensus” on man-made global warming.

The list below is just the tip of the iceberg. A more detailed and comprehensive sampling of scientists who have only recently spoken out against climate hysteria will be forthcoming in a soon to be released U.S. Senate report. Please stay tuned to this website, as this new government report is set to redefine the current climate debate.

In the meantime, please review the list of scientists below and ask yourself why the media is missing one of the biggest stories in climate of 2007. Feel free to distribute the partial list of scientists who recently converted to skeptics to your local schools and universities. The voices of rank and file scientists opposing climate doomsayers can serve as a counter to the alarmism that children are being exposed to on a daily basis. (See Washington Post April 16, 2007 article about kids fearing of a “climactic Armageddon” )

The media's climate fear factor seemingly grows louder even as the latest science grows less and less alarming by the day. (See Der Spiegel May 7, 2007 article: Not the End of the World as We Know It ) It is also worth noting that the proponents of climate fears are increasingly attempting to suppress dissent by skeptics. (See UPI May 10, 2007 article: U.N. official says it's 'completely immoral' to doubt global warming fears )

Once Believers, Now Skeptics ( Link to pdf version )

Geophysicist Dr. Claude Allegre, a top geophysicist and French Socialist who has authored more than 100 scientific articles and written 11 books and received numerous scientific awards including the Goldschmidt Medal from the Geochemical Society of the United States, converted from climate alarmist to skeptic in 2006. Allegre, who was one of the first scientists to sound global warming fears 20 years ago, now says the cause of climate change is "unknown" and accused the “prophets of doom of global warming” of being motivated by money, noting that "the ecology of helpless protesting has become a very lucrative business for some people!" “Glaciers’ chronicles or historical archives point to the fact that climate is a capricious phenomena. This fact is confirmed by mathematical meteorological theories. So, let us be cautious,” Allegre explained in a September 21, 2006 article in the French newspaper L'EXPRESS. The National Post in Canada also profiled Allegre on March 2, 2007, noting “Allegre has the highest environmental credentials. The author of early environmental books, he fought successful battles to protect the ozone layer from CFCs and public health from lead pollution.” Allegre now calls fears of a climate disaster "simplistic and obscuring the true dangers” mocks "the greenhouse-gas fanatics whose proclamations consist in denouncing man's role on the climate without doing anything about it except organizing conferences and preparing protocols that become dead letters." Allegre, a member of both the French and U.S. Academy of Sciences, had previously expressed concern about manmade global warming. "By burning fossil fuels, man enhanced the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which has raised the global mean temperature by half a degree in the last century," Allegre wrote 20 years ago. In addition, Allegre was one of 1500 scientists who signed a November 18, 1992 letter titled “World Scientists' Warning to Humanity” in which the scientists warned that global warming’s “potential risks are very great.”

Geologist Bruno Wiskel of the University of Alberta recently reversed his view of man-made climate change and instead became a global warming skeptic. Wiskel was once such a big believer in man-made global warming that he set out to build a “Kyoto house” in honor of the UN sanctioned Kyoto Protocol which was signed in 1997. Wiskel wanted to prove that the Kyoto Protocol’s goals were achievable by people making small changes in their lives. But after further examining the science behind Kyoto, Wiskel reversed his scientific views completely and became such a strong skeptic, that he recently wrote a book titled “The Emperor's New Climate: Debunking the Myth of Global Warming.” A November 15, 2006 Edmonton Sun article explains Wiskel’s conversion while building his “Kyoto house”: “Instead, he said he realized global warming theory was full of holes and ‘red flags,’ and became convinced that humans are not responsible for rising temperatures.” Wiskel now says “the truth has to start somewhere.” Noting that the Earth has been warming for 18,000 years, Wiskel told the Canadian newspaper, “If this happened once and we were the cause of it, that would be cause for concern. But glaciers have been coming and going for billions of years." Wiskel also said that global warming has gone "from a science to a religion” and noted that research money is being funneled into promoting climate alarmism instead of funding areas he considers more worthy. "If you funnel money into things that can't be changed, the money is not going into the places that it is needed,” he said.

Astrophysicist Dr. Nir Shaviv, one of Israel's top young award winning scientists, recanted his belief that manmade emissions were driving climate change. ""Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media. In fact, there is much more than meets the eye,” Shaviv said in February 2, 2007 Canadian National Post article. According to Shaviv, the C02 temperature link is only “incriminating circumstantial evidence.” "Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming" and "it is unlikely that [the solar climate link] does not exist,” Shaviv noted pointing to the impact cosmic- rays have on the atmosphere. According to the National Post, Shaviv believes that even a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere by 2100 "will not dramatically increase the global temperature." “Even if we halved the CO2 output, and the CO2 increase by 2100 would be, say, a 50% increase relative to today instead of a doubled amount, the expected reduction in the rise of global temperature would be less than 0.5C. This is not significant,” Shaviv explained. Shaviv also wrote on August 18, 2006 that a colleague of his believed that “CO2 should have a large effect on climate” so “he set out to reconstruct the phanerozoic temperature. He wanted to find the CO2 signature in the data, but since there was none, he slowly had to change his views.” Shaviv believes there will be more scientists converting to man-made global warming skepticism as they discover the dearth of evidence. “I think this is common to many of the scientists who think like us (that is, that CO2 is a secondary climate driver). Each one of us was working in his or her own niche. While working there, each one of us realized that things just don't add up to support the AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) picture. So many had to change their views,” he wrote.

Mathematician & engineer Dr. David Evans, who did carbon accounting for the Australian Government, recently detailed his conversion to a skeptic. “I devoted six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian government to estimate carbon emissions from land use change and forestry. When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty conclusive, but since then new evidence has weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause. I am now skeptical,” Evans wrote in an April 30, 2007 blog. “But after 2000 the evidence for carbon emissions gradually got weaker -- better temperature data for the last century, more detailed ice core data, then laboratory evidence that cosmic rays precipitate low clouds,” Evans wrote. “As Lord Keynes famously said, ‘When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?’” he added. Evans noted how he benefited from climate fears as a scientist. “And the political realm in turn fed money back into the scientific community. By the late 1990's, lots of jobs depended on the idea that carbon emissions caused global warming. Many of them were bureaucratic, but there were a lot of science jobs created too. I was on that gravy train, making a high wage in a science job that would not have existed if we didn't believe carbon emissions caused global warming. And so were lots of people around me; and there were international conferences full of such people. And we had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet! But starting in about 2000, the last three of the four pieces of evidence outlined above fell away or reversed,” Evans wrote. “The pre-2000 ice core data was the central evidence for believing that atmospheric carbon caused temperature increases. The new ice core data shows that past warmings were *not* initially caused by rises in atmospheric carbon, and says nothing about the strength of any amplification. This piece of evidence casts reasonable doubt that atmospheric carbon had any role in past warmings, while still allowing the possibility that it had a supporting role,” he added. “Unfortunately politics and science have become even more entangled. The science of global warming has become a partisan political issue, so positions become more entrenched. Politicians and the public prefer simple and less-nuanced messages. At the moment the political climate strongly supports carbon emissions as the cause of global warming, to the point of sometimes rubbishing or silencing critics,” he concluded. (Evans bio link )

Climate researcher Dr. Tad Murty, former Senior Research Scientist for Fisheries and Oceans in Canada, also reversed himself from believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic. “I stated with a firm belief about global warming, until I started working on it myself,” Murty explained on August 17, 2006. “I switched to the other side in the early 1990's when Fisheries and Oceans Canada asked me to prepare a position paper and I started to look into the problem seriously,” Murty explained. Murty was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part, "If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.”

Botanist Dr. David Bellamy, a famed UK environmental campaigner, former lecturer at Durham University and host of a popular UK TV series on wildlife, recently converted into a skeptic after reviewing the science and now calls global warming fears "poppycock." According to a May 15, 2005 article in the UK Sunday Times, Bellamy said “global warming is largely a natural phenomenon. The world is wasting stupendous amounts of money on trying to fix something that can’t be fixed.” “The climate-change people have no proof for their claims. They have computer models which do not prove anything,” Bellamy added. Bellamy’s conversion on global warming did not come without a sacrifice as several environmental groups have ended their association with him because of his views on climate change. The severing of relations came despite Bellamy’s long activism for green campaigns. The UK Times reported Bellamy “won respect from hardline environmentalists with his campaigns to save Britain’s peat bogs and other endangered habitats. In Tasmania he was arrested when he tried to prevent loggers cutting down a rainforest.”

Climate scientist Dr. Chris de Freitas of The University of Auckland, N.Z., also converted from a believer in man-made global warming to a skeptic. “At first I accepted that increases in human caused additions of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere would trigger changes in water vapor etc. and lead to dangerous ‘global warming,’ But with time and with the results of research, I formed the view that, although it makes for a good story, it is unlikely that the man-made changes are drivers of significant climate variation.” de Freitas wrote on August 17, 2006. “I accept there may be small changes. But I see the risk of anything serious to be minute,” he added. “One could reasonably argue that lack of evidence is not a good reason for complacency. But I believe the billions of dollars committed to GW research and lobbying for GW and for Kyoto treaties etc could be better spent on uncontroversial and very real environmental problems (such as air pollution, poor sanitation, provision of clean water and improved health services) that we know affect tens of millions of people,” de Freitas concluded. de Freitas was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part, “Significant [scientific] advances have been made since the [Kyoto] protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases.”

Meteorologist Dr. Reid Bryson, the founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology at University of Wisconsin (now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences, was pivotal in promoting the coming ice age scare of the 1970’s ( See Time Magazine’s 1974 article “Another Ice Age” citing Bryson: & see Newsweek’s 1975 article “The Cooling World” citing Bryson) has now converted into a leading global warming skeptic. In February 8, 2007 Bryson dismissed what he terms "sky is falling" man-made global warming fears. Bryson, was on the United Nations Global 500 Roll of Honor and was identified by the British Institute of Geographers as the most frequently cited climatologist in the world. “Before there were enough people to make any difference at all, two million years ago, nobody was changing the climate, yet the climate was changing, okay?” Bryson told the May 2007 issue of Energy Cooperative News. “All this argument is the temperature going up or not, it’s absurd. Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air,” Bryson said. “You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide,” he added. “We cannot say what part of that warming was due to mankind's addition of ‘greenhouse gases’ until we consider the other possible factors, such as aerosols. The aerosol content of the atmosphere was measured during the past century, but to my knowledge this data was never used. We can say that the question of anthropogenic modification of the climate is an important question -- too important to ignore. However, it has now become a media free-for-all and a political issue more than a scientific problem,” Bryson explained in 2005.

Global warming author and economist Hans H.J. Labohm started out as a man-made global warming believer but he later switched his view after conducting climate research. Labohm wrote on August 19, 2006, “I started as a anthropogenic global warming believer, then I read the [UN’s IPCC] Summary for Policymakers and the research of prominent skeptics.” “After that, I changed my mind,” Labohn explained. Labohn co-authored the 2004 book “Man-Made Global Warming: Unraveling a Dogma,” with chemical engineer Dick Thoenes who was the former chairman of the Royal Netherlands Chemical Society. Labohm was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part, “’Climate change is real’ is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural ‘noise.’”

Paleoclimatologist Tim Patterson, of Carlton University in Ottawa converted from believer in C02 driving the climate change to a skeptic. “I taught my students that CO2 was the prime driver of climate change,” Patterson wrote on April 30, 2007. Patterson said his “conversion” happened following his research on “the nature of paleo-commercial fish populations in the NE Pacific.” “[My conversion from believer to climate skeptic] came about approximately 5-6 years ago when results began to come in from a major NSERC (Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada) Strategic Project Grant where I was PI (principle investigator),” Patterson explained. “Over the course of about a year, I switched allegiances,” he wrote. “As the proxy results began to come in, we were astounded to find that paleoclimatic and paleoproductivity records were full of cycles that corresponded to various sun-spot cycles. About that time, [geochemist] Jan Veizer and others began to publish reasonable hypotheses as to how solar signals could be amplified and control climate,” Patterson noted. Patterson says his conversion “probably cost me a lot of grant money. However, as a scientist I go where the science takes me and not were activists want me to go.” Patterson now asserts that more and more scientists are converting to climate skeptics. "When I go to a scientific meeting, there's lots of opinion out there, there's lots of discussion (about climate change). I was at the Geological Society of America meeting in Philadelphia in the fall and I would say that people with my opinion were probably in the majority,” Patterson told the Winnipeg Sun on February 13, 2007. Patterson, who believes the sun is responsible for the recent warm up of the Earth, ridiculed the environmentalists and the media for not reporting the truth. "But if you listen to [Canadian environmental activist David] Suzuki and the media, it's like a tiger chasing its tail. They try to outdo each other and all the while proclaiming that the debate is over but it isn't -- come out to a scientific meeting sometime,” Patterson said. In a separate interview on April 26, 2007 with a Canadian newspaper, Patterson explained that the scientific proof favors skeptics. “I think the proof in the pudding, based on what (media and governments) are saying, (is) we're about three quarters of the way (to disaster) with the doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere," he said. “The world should be heating up like crazy by now, and it's not. The temperatures match very closely with the solar cycles."

Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, chairman of the Central Laboratory for the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Radiological Protection in Warsaw, took a scientific journey from a believer of man-made climate change in the form of global cooling in the 1970’s all the way to converting to a skeptic of current predictions of catastrophic man-made global warming. “At the beginning of the 1970s I believed in man-made climate cooling, and therefore I started a study on the effects of industrial pollution on the global atmosphere, using glaciers as a history book on this pollution,” Dr. Jaworowski, wrote on August 17, 2006. “With the advent of man-made warming political correctness in the beginning of 1980s, I already had a lot of experience with polar and high altitude ice, and I have serious problems in accepting the reliability of ice core CO2 studies,” Jaworowski added. Jaworowski, who has published many papers on climate with a focus on CO2 measurements in ice cores, also dismissed the UN IPCC summary and questioned what the actual level of C02 was in the atmosphere in a March 16, 2007 report in EIR science entitled “CO2: The Greatest Scientific Scandal of Our Time.” “We thus find ourselves in the situation that the entire theory of man-made global warming—with its repercussions in science, and its important consequences for politics and the global economy—is based on ice core studies that provided a false picture of the atmospheric CO2 levels,” Jaworowski wrote. “For the past three decades, these well-known direct CO2 measurements, recently compiled and analyzed by Ernst-Georg Beck (Beck 2006a, Beck 2006b, Beck 2007), were completely ignored by climatologists—and not because they were wrong. Indeed, these measurements were made by several Nobel Prize winners, using the techniques that are standard textbook procedures in chemistry, biochemistry, botany, hygiene, medicine, nutrition, and ecology. The only reason for rejection was that these measurements did not fit the hypothesis of anthropogenic climatic warming. I regard this as perhaps the greatest scientific scandal of our time,” Jaworowski wrote. “The hypothesis, in vogue in the 1970s, stating that emissions of industrial dust will soon induce the new Ice Age, seem now to be a conceited anthropocentric exaggeration, bringing into discredit the science of that time. The same fate awaits the present,” he added. Jaworowski believes that cosmic rays and solar activity are major drivers of the Earth’s climate. Jaworowski was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part: "It may be many years yet before we properly understand the Earth's climate system. Nevertheless, significant advances have been made since the protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases."

Paleoclimatologist Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor of the Department of Earth Sciences at University of Ottawa, reversed his views on man-made climate change after further examining the evidence. “I used to agree with these dramatic warnings of climate disaster. I taught my students that most of the increase in temperature of the past century was due to human contribution of C02. The association seemed so clear and simple. Increases of greenhouse gases were driving us towards a climate catastrophe,” Clark said in a 2005 documentary "Climate Catastrophe Cancelled: What You're Not Being Told About the Science of Climate Change.” “However, a few years ago, I decided to look more closely at the science and it astonished me. In fact there is no evidence of humans being the cause. There is, however, overwhelming evidence of natural causes such as changes in the output of the sun. This has completely reversed my views on the Kyoto protocol,” Clark explained. “Actually, many other leading climate researchers also have serious concerns about the science underlying the [Kyoto] Protocol,” he added.

Environmental geochemist Dr. Jan Veizer, professor emeritus of University of Ottawa, converted from believer to skeptic after conducting scientific studies of climate history. “I simply accepted the (global warming) theory as given,” Veizer wrote on April 30, 2007 about predictions that increasing C02 in the atmosphere was leading to a climate catastrophe. “The final conversion came when I realized that the solar/cosmic ray connection gave far more consistent picture with climate, over many time scales, than did the CO2 scenario,” Veizer wrote. “It was the results of my work on past records, on geological time scales, that led me to realize the discrepancies with empirical observations. Trying to understand the background issues of modeling led to realization of the assumptions and uncertainties involved,” Veizer explained. “The past record strongly favors the solar/cosmic alternative as the principal climate driver,” he added. Veizer acknowledgez the Earth has been warming and he believes in the scientific value of climate modeling. “The major point where I diverge from the IPCC scenario is my belief that it underestimates the role of natural variability by proclaiming CO2 to be the only reasonable source of additional energy in the planetary balance. Such additional energy is needed to drive the climate. The point is that most of the temperature, in both nature and models, arises from the greenhouse of water vapor (model language ‘positive water vapor feedback’,) Veizer wrote. “Thus to get more temperature, more water vapor is needed. This is achieved by speeding up the water cycle by inputting more energy into the system,” he continued. “Note that it is not CO2 that is in the models but its presumed energy equivalent (model language ‘prescribed CO2’). Yet, the models (and climate) would generate a more or less similar outcome regardless where this additional energy is coming from. This is why the solar/cosmic connection is so strongly opposed, because it can influence the global energy budget which, in turn, diminishes the need for an energy input from the CO2 greenhouse,” he wrote.

More to follow...

Related Links:

Senator Inhofe declares climate momentum shifting away from Gore (The Politico op ed)

Scientific Smackdown: Skeptics Voted The Clear Winners Against Global Warming Believers in Heated NYC Debate

Global Warming on Mars & Cosmic Ray Research Are Shattering Media Driven "Consensus’

Global Warming: The Momentum has Shifted to Climate Skeptics

Prominent French Scientist Reverses Belief in Global Warming - Now a Skeptic

Top Israeli Astrophysicist Recants His Belief in Manmade Global Warming - Now Says Sun Biggest Factor in Warming

Warming On Jupiter, Mars, Pluto, Neptune's Moon & Earth Linked to Increased Solar Activity, Scientists Say

Panel of Broadcast Meteorologists Reject Man-Made Global Warming Fears- Claim 95% of Weathermen Skeptical

MIT Climate Scientist Calls Fears of Global Warming 'Silly' - Equates Concerns to ‘Little Kids’ Attempting to "Scare Each Other"

Weather Channel TV Host Goes 'Political'- Stars in Global Warming Film Accusing U.S. Government of ‘Criminal Neglect’

Weather Channel Climate Expert Calls for Decertifying Global Warming Skeptics

ABC-TV Meteorologist: I Don't Know A Single Weatherman Who Believes 'Man-Made Global Warming Hype'

The Weather Channel Climate Expert Refuses to Retract Call for Decertification for Global Warming Skeptics

Senator Inhofe Announces Public Release Of "Skeptic’s Guide To Debunking Global Warming"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Isn't it interesting, the parallels between global warmers and evolutionists? They are afraid to let people even consider an alternative viewpoint. They are afraid of debate and seek to totally stifle the opposition. Funny, isn't it? If you truly believe that your side has answers, you welcome the open discussion of ideas. Global warmers and evolutionists are quite the opposite. What does that tell you?