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
Who do you think corrected those mistakes? Scientists.
How long does it take to correct a mistake without open debate.
Bdaman said:
“If I came from great apes why do we still have apes.”
I truly hope that you are not stupid enough to believe this a valid argument. If you do believe this is a valid argument then please explain to me why you have cousins.
Bdaman said:
“I got one, Have scientist[s] ever made stuff up.
Piltdown man, case closed.”
A hoax uncovered by SCIENTISTS. Thank you for the evidence that science is self-correcting and errors are most effectively addressed within the scientific community itself.
And as for your hurt feelings, you are acting as an apologist for some of the most pernicious special interests there are
Next you’ll be telling me I have no right to flush my toilet.
James said:
“I’m relying on the premise that that which cannot be scientifically explained cannot be science.”
Me too.
James said:
“Have scientists ever been wrong? Of course. However, that is completely irrelevant to the current discussion. It’s the purest fallacy to say that because scientists have sometimes been wrong in the past, they must be wrong in this instance.
Also, like Slarti said earlier, who do you think corrected those mistakes? Scientists.”
I just felt that this was worth repeating…
You see scientist are human, we like to think they are more than that because they are scientist.
If I came from great apes why do we still have apes.
I got one, Have scientist ever made stuff up.
Piltdown man, case closed.
BBB,
The Big Bang is a completely separate theory from evolution – personally I do not believe the Big Bang theory is accurate, but if the Large Hadron Collider says otherwise, I will reconsider my position. Speaking of scientific evidence, can you explain why your 2nd chromosome isn’t compelling evidence that you share a common ancestry with Great Apes? Something besides ‘That God is a tricksy one, isn’t he…’?
BBB,
Have scientists ever been wrong? Of course. However, that is completely irrelevant to the current discussion. It’s the purest fallacy to say that because scientists have sometimes been wrong in the past, they must be wrong in this instance.
Also, like Slarti said earlier, who do you think corrected those mistakes? Scientists.
BBB said:
Wrong. Scientists must ask the universe a question and accept the answer they get in response. If you (or anyone else) wants to make a hypothesis, design and implement an experiment to test is and honestly report the results and implications regardless of whether or not they were correctly predicted, then they are doing things scientifically. ‘God did it’ is not a scientific hypothesis – that doesn’t mean that scientists can’t believe in that answer – just that it isn’t a scientific answer.
Slartibartfast,
Do you think I can provide you with plenty of scientific conclusions that have been based on an insufficient dataset, that have been subsequently proven wrong?
BBB,
I’m relying on the premise that that which cannot be scientifically explained cannot be science.
Also: Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Bdaman posted:
“Intelligent design is not a random, convenient solution to evolution,” Wells said. “In fact, it actually opens more doors to scientific research and investigation.”
Please give me an example of a single falsifiable hypothesis generated by intelligent design – without testable theories you cannot have science and the quote you posted is a flat-out lie.
James M.,
You’re relying on the premise of that which cannot be scientifically explained cannot be true. While the existence of a Supreme Being may not be succesfully proven, it does not eliminate the possibility.
Bdaman,
How was the Piltdown Man hoax uncovered? And please exhibit a scientist that doesn’t think that the multiplicity of species we see today didn’t result from evolution from simpler forms. Refining a theory is not the same as rebutting a theory. The fact is that there are no scientists doing research on ‘alternatives’ to evolution – just scientists working towards a better understanding of the mechanics that make evolution happen.
And as for your hurt feelings, you are acting as an apologist for some of the most pernicious special interests there are – If you want to protect them and their interests then you’re going to have to take some punches.
Slarti,
I agree wholeheartedly.
EVOLUTION HAS TOO MANY HOLES
There is a fossil record that shows how some species have changed over time. Changes in gene structure explain simple things, like the differences in hair color, eyes, etc.
That is about all that evolution theory can claim based on scientific evidence. People often refer to “the holes in evolutionary theory.” These aren’t just little gaps in the theory, they are colossal chasms that cry out for scientific explanation. For openers, the well-read author Tom Wolfe said that he has to laugh at scientists who talk knowingly about the “big bang theory.” Mr. Wolfe asks, the big bang? “From what?” How was the vast, incomprehensible universe created from nothing? Scientists can only answer, “I don’t know.” And how were the thousands of species originally created?
Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, a Catholic priest and noted scientist, tried to show how God could have used evolution in the creative process over time. However, Chardin pointed out the big, unexplained and short-timed, explosive leaps in evolution theory: (1) the leap from chemicals to plants; (2) the leap from plants to animals; (3) the leap from simple animals to highly complex human beings.
Finally, there is the epistemological issue, which is the theory of knowledge, which deals with the conditions, especially the limits and validity, under which I can know. The scientific method is not the only way of knowing. The scientific method requires observation, and therefore, we also can know by observing people, the acts of loving and the values of being such as truth, goodness and beauty. Monkeys don’t express knowledge of the wonders of such values. To paraphrase Desi Arnaz talking to Lucy, “Mr. Scientist, you’ve got some ‘splainin’ to do.”
DUANE FLEMING
http://findarticles.com/p/news-articles/palm-beach-post/mi_8163/is_20080113/evolution-holes/ai_n51982159/
BBB,
Science proceeds from the premise that God isn’t screwing with the laws of physics, so as to make all experimental data suspect. If you can come up with a testable hypothesis that doesn’t, or that relies on the existence of God, you could revolutionize science and become a famous man. Good luck with that.
Hey Mr. DNA is here. Tell us how DNA by itself makes body parts and makes my muscles big.
My bad on the 97 percent thing and in re to my scientific illiteracy you may be right but this doesn’t mean I don’t have common sense.