While every snow flurry or cool snap is often cited as evidence of the folly of “global warming” by critics, scientists at the NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies have released data showing that 2010 now ranks as the hottest climate year on record.
The combined land-ocean temperature readings from NASA’s Goddard Institute indicate that 2010 has surpassed what it identified as the previous warmest climate year, 2005.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration data shows that 1998 was the warmest year on record with 2005 close behind. The findings have been released after another failure to reach a significant reductions in emissions in the Cancun summit.
Nations again refused to make the cuts necessary to prevent global temperatures from rising 2 degrees Celsius, or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit above pre-industrial levels by 2100.
This report comes with the disclosure that a top FOX executive ordered correspondents not to cite global warming statistics and to question the basis for climate change claims.
Source: Washington Post
James M.,
Are all scientists atheists, or are some just dishonest?
Science must always approach the subject matter from an atheistic point of view. The purpose of their field is to take God out of the equation. If they didn’t, they wouldn’t be so willing to pursue the answers.
I know this evolution digression has us seriously off topic, but I think it’s a rather enlightening digression. Besides BBB and Bdaman, I wonder how much overlap there is between those who deny climate change and evolution.
James,
The real problem with religion playing in science (in my opinion) is that they want to play, but refuse to follow the rules of science. The reason that intelligent design and creationism are not science is because they don’t produce testable hypotheses. Without testable hypotheses, you cannot apply the scientific method, therefore you cannot conduct scientific study of the topic. Similarly, the AGW folks are not interested in scientifically proving their case, just in moving the discussion outside of the scientific arena where their propaganda is more effective…
James M.,
If I decided to add pecans to my chocolate chip cookie recipe, but never told anyone I was doing it, would the existence of the chocolate chip cookie before the one including pecans be considered to have been based on the natural selection evolution of the cookie or could it be that the creator changed the recipe?
Those who subscribe to the current theories, without having evidence of the creator, would surely assume that the pecans entered the batch via some natural event (like a high wind that blew them into the kitchen).
Bdaman,
At no time have I said anything like “97 percent of climate scientists agree”. Search for my name, I have posted like 5 times on this thread — it’s easy to review.
The fact that you would say something like “Even Darwins original theory is being challenged” reinforces my whole point about your scientific illiteracy. Darwin’s theory is not sacred, and scientists refining or challenging it, are not supporting the creationist idea that “God did it.” Also, punctuated equilibrium is not a new idea; it’s what made Stephen Jay Gould famous in the early 1970s.
“Intelligent design is not a random, convenient solution to evolution,” Wells said. “In fact, it actually opens more doors to scientific research and investigation.”
This, according to Wells, is because a lot of scientific claims come from from a preconceived “story” (Darwin’s theory), in which the scientists just plug in the “plot” (or whatever fossil they happen to find) to make the story work.
Sound like exactly what they do with Climate Science.
Don’t forget the movie Darwins Dilemma.
“Do you and Bdaman really not understand the difference between Darwin’s original theory and the modern theory of evolution?”
I understand both, and both are full of holes.
James what I’m pointing out is you think that the science is settled. Just like your 97 percent of climate scientist agree comment.
Even Darwins original theory is being challenged.
Just curious, ever hear of Pilt Down Man.
BBB,
I didn’t attack you personally or say anything about your faith, so I’m not sure why you’re being defensive (your second paragraph).
Religion (or better said “faith”) doesn’t want or need to play in the scientific arena.
You want research done to support the idea that a supreme being created the Universe. That is religion trying to play in science’s arena. In order to do that kind of research scientifically, you have to look at whether or not there is sufficient scientific evidence for the existence of God to support that theory.
BBB,
Do you and Bdaman really not understand the difference between Darwin’s original theory and the modern theory of evolution?
James M.,
Religion (or better said “faith”) doesn’t want or need to play in the scientific arena. While science will continue to explain what many have chosen to accept based on faith, it does not eliminate the possible existence of a supreme being from the equation. There are many things that are currently accepted as being supernatural events that will probably be explained by scientific inquiry. However, I’m not yet convinced that all of them will be.
You’re under the impression that I must prove to you that God exists before I can accept it for myself. You’re wrong. My free will permits me to accept what I want on faith alone. The day a scientist can create human life from a mixture of chemicals is the day that I will believe that they have figured out all the pieces to the puzzle. You might be satisfied with far less, but I do have a need to subscribe to your accepted beliefs. And I won’t ask you to do more than accept that I can hold mine.
Darwin’s theory of natural selction is being adequately challenged in the new book “What Darwin Got Wrong”. It was written by two atheists.
Bdaman,
It wouldn’t, actually. The fact that you mistake debate between gradualism (Darwin’s original theory) and punctuated equilibrium for scientists debunking the modern theory of evolution says all anyone needs to know about your scientific background.
BBB,
You’re wrong. If religion wants to play in the scientific arena, it has to submit its most cherished positions to scientific scrutiny. It can’t simply argue from the negative (i.e. “This theory is wrong, therefore God must have done it”). You think there’s insufficient evidence for evolution? How much scientific evidence for the existence of God do you think there is?
Nov. 10, 2010
A geologist at New York University says Charles Darwin’s theory of gradual evolution is not backed up by geological history.
http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/107040403.html
Put in google “Challenging Darwins Theory”, it might surprise you how many scientist actually do.
James M.,
I’m never afraid to see ideas shared in public. Bullshit will be subsequently exposed for what it is.
Just as much as you would like to see a mini-series on the evidence for global climate change and the possible solutions, I would like to see one challenging the evidence and the effects of the proposed solutions.
I think humans and many other species of life are far too complex to be explained by evolution alone. Much like climate change, I think scientists are too willing to accept some things without sufficient evidence to support their conclusion. Funding, I think, has a lot to do with that. I don’t see anyone funding research to prove that a supreme being created the universe. I never have. Darwin’s conclusions are premature and incomplete.
When two sides are not remotely equal
Thats because the other side cheated and gamed the system.
Also Dr Slartibartfast one must also consider how earthquakes can affect climate change.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/earth-20100301.html
BBB,
When two sides are not remotely equal, a public debate just legitimizes the idea that the jury’s still out among scientists. As such, the minority idea (that can’t attract scientists on its own merits) always wants a public debate. See, e.g., evolution and creationism.
I’d love to see a six-part miniseries on PBS on the evidence for global climate change and the possible solutions.
By the way, I rarely do more than read the title of the links you post and I hope that everyone else does likewise.
That’s your choice. After your whore/slutt comment I do the same with yours.
And it really doesn’t matter, two years of climate talks with no results and now republicans are back in control of the issue. The gig is up and the only way that they can continue with the scam is to falsify data just the way they’ve been doing for years.
Things are changing though, other government scientist who were afraid to speak out will do so in the coming year. We are already seeing changes.
In case you missed this comment from one of NASA’s pages.
Earth’s orbit around and orientation toward the Sun change over spans of many thousands of years. In turn, these changing “orbital mechanics” force climate to change because they change where and how much sunlight reaches Earth. (Please see for more details.) Thus, changing Earth’s exposure to sunlight forces climate to change.
According to scientists’ models of Earth’s orbit and orientation toward the Sun indicate that our world should be just beginning to enter a new period of cooling — perhaps the next ice age.
http://science.nasa.gov/earth-science/big-questions/what-are-the-primary-causes-of-the-earth-system-variability/
Then others are talking about it as well
http://www.thegwpf.org/science-news/2053-speculation-alert-qnew-little-ice-age-cannot-be-ruled-outq.html
If in fact this is happening then this will prove conclusively that CO2 is not the main driver of temps.