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
By imposing tariffs and trade restrictions that will cause a drop in U.S. GDP
Isn’t that what you proposed Dr.Slarti to cut CO2 emmisions.
I think I am going to adopt a new term introduced in the Penn & Teller water ban video.
Joiners -the opposite of deniers.
J. Brian Harris, Ph.D., P.E.,
I think the post you were replying to was directed at me, not by me.
Since when is “God” a “Supreme Being”? Whoever came up with that nonsense?
Is not “God” the name for whatever is the root cause of whatever whoever “believes in God” does not understand?
For every way to do something well, there may be quadrillions of ways to do it poorly.
No actually Supreme Being could ever have concocted a world in which it is right to do what is wrong in order to learn how to avoid doing whatever wrong was done. A Supreme Being, from the traditionally orthodox establishment “Christian” sense would have been able to construct the mythic Garden of Eden sufficiently well that so-called “original sin” would have been prevented. Only a really stupid Supreme Being (and therefore not supreme) could come up with a world in which wrongdoing is both unpreventable and prohibited.
Given my personal observations to the effect that human stupidity appears to have no upper limit boundary, if “God as the Supreme Being” is that in the image and likeness of which we are made, such a “God” must have beyond infinite stupidity, and must be the Supremely Stupid Being.
Or, did I miss something? I do sometimes make misteaks. Though it has been a while since I burned one while cooking it.
Slartibartfast,
“Well, you walked right into that one – great apes (chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans) have 24 pairs of chromosomes and humans only 23. Evolution says that in order for great apes and humans to share common descent that a human chromosome must be the fusion of two great ape chromosomes. Chromosome 2 in humans is exactly that. There is no alternate explanation for what would otherwise be a staggering coincidence. We’re not talking about the same ingredient being used, we’re talking about a fingerprint being a perfect match to two partial prints. The defense can talk about cookies all they want, but I doubt the jury will believe that there were two different people with matching half-prints at the crime scene…”
Are you saying that it would be impossible for a Supreme Being to have made such a creation?
BBB I posted that somewhere here along with the one that they just did at Cancun. Not Penn and Teller but the ban on di-hydrogen monoxide.
BBB posted:
Well, you walked right into that one – great apes (chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans) have 24 pairs of chromosomes and humans only 23. Evolution says that in order for great apes and humans to share common descent that a human chromosome must be the fusion of two great ape chromosomes. Chromosome 2 in humans is exactly that. There is no alternate explanation for what would otherwise be a staggering coincidence. We’re not talking about the same ingredient being used, we’re talking about a fingerprint being a perfect match to two partial prints. The defense can talk about cookies all they want, but I doubt the jury will believe that there were two different people with matching half-prints at the crime scene…
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi3erdgVVTw&fs=1&hl=en_US]
Hey monkey brains, riddle me this. Why is my cousins brains bigger but I’m smarter.
di-hydrogen monoxide = the invisible killer
J. Brian Harris, Ph.D., P.E.,
Thank you for your efforts to educate people on the toxicity of dihydrogen monoxide. It is a tragedy that countless people are killed yearly by this poison.
Did you cover the hypothermia tables in your scientific ethics class? I thought that was the most interesting case study in mine…
J. Brian Harris,
“If we could only completely rid planet earth of every last molecule of the sometimes-toxic chemical, di-hydrogen monoxide, the damage of human activity to the earth’s global environment would be completely eliminated.”
So true! 🙂
If we could only completely rid planet earth of every last molecule of the sometimes-toxic chemical, di-hydrogen monoxide, the damage of human activity to the earth’s global environment would be completely eliminated.
But, But, Dr. Harris, then I wouldn’t be able to flush my toilet.
Slartibartfast and James M.,
Belief in a Supreme Being, and that beings role as a creator is not something based on science. It’s not as if one cannot exist in the realm of the other. You want scientific proof of something that is not based on science, and that fact that the existence of a Supreme Being cannot be scientifically proven is sufficient for you to dismiss the existence as implausible. Do I have that right?
Slartibartfast said; “[C]an you explain why your 2nd chromosome isn’t compelling evidence that you share a common ancestry with Great Apes?”
Using some of the same ingredients in two different recipes does not make them share common ancestry. It simply identifies that they share some of the same ingredients.
Did the chef need to create a new ingredient because he was already using butter in his mashed potatoes, and didn’t think it was right to put butter in cookies? A shared special ingredient could just mean that the creator of both found it to be something that could be used in both.
As I have previously indicated, I hold the Ph.D. in Bioengineering from the University of Illinois at Chicago and am a Wisconsin Registered Professional Engineer, No. 34106-6. My Professional Engineer license is readily verified on the Wisconsin Department of Regulation and Licensing web site.
I presume, by education and study, to be competent as a scientist, as a biologist and as an engineer; to become a Ph.D. bioengineer I had to study biology no less than typical biologists do.
Without judgmentalism, I refer to the post by James M, of December 18, 2010 at 4:35 pm…
Are all scientists atheists? No, because I am a non-atheist scientist. Are some scientists dishonest? Methinks, yes, and I took a required course on research ethics because of prior scientific fraud(s).
“Science” is the name of a construct, constructs are incapable of taking action, and so science never does anything, and, in particular, neger approaches any subject matter. Scientists, being entities in the form of persons, do things whereas constructs never actually do anything because they have no tangible existence per se.
Hence, science cannot approach the subject matter at all, and therefore cannot approach any subject matter from any point of view, atheist or otherwise.
Perhaps one of the essential features of the comedy of the human tragedy is the proclivity for delusional projection of people’s sense of self (self-imago) onto all things, whether constructs or entities, whether animate or inanimate.
“Anthropomorphization” is a plausibly useful word as a name for this sort of scientist or pseudo-scientist driven blunder.
So, global warming? Climate change? Climate and global temperature are at best metastable aspects of planet earth and environs. Change might be the only constant were it not for the observation that change itself changes.
Partial derivatives, anyone?
Meanwhile, two scientists, besides me, who were (Schmidt) and isn’t (Barbour) are of the Carleton College Faculty.
Karl Schmidt was a philosophy professor at Carleton who wrote to books dealing with science and God, “The Creative I and the Divine” in 1937 and “From Science to God” in 1943.
Ian G. Barbour was one of my Carleton professors as professor of physics and professor of religion. In the 1990s, he gave the Gifford Lectures and was awarded the Templeton Prize, and has written many books, most of which are in my library.
Another Carleton professor, Philip H. Phenix, after he left Carleton, wrote a scientifically oriented book, “Intelligible Religion.”
And, said in whispers lest I be caught and punished, it is my personal and professional observation that adversarial jurisprudence is an unintelligible religion as I know of science, biology, and religion.
If we could only completely rid planet earth of every last molecule of the sometimes-toxic chemical, di-hydrogen monoxide, the damage of human activity to the earth’s global environment would be completely eliminated.
Who said, ““I can give no satisfactory answer.” and what did he mean by that.
It took 80 years to correct the Piltdown Man Hoax. How much longer will it take to correct the Global Warming Hoax.
Can you correct a mistake with the attitude of the science is settled there will be no more debate. Is this how scientist correct mistakes. Oh thats right Al Gore like myself is not a scientist.
bdaman,
“If I came from great apes why do we still have apes.”
Why do they have such large nostrils? Evolution? Did early apes have large nostrils?