Category: Science Page 2 of 3
So now, I suppose the implicit argument from NASA goes,”Let’s spend next to a trillion $’s of tax-payer money that we don’t have (maybe more) trying to find out if there MIGHT be any alien microbes on the red planet.”
Sounds reasonable. I mean after all, the only evidence they have of this is the gaseous by-product (something they have known was already there for quite some time now) of a supposed alien microbe, not any actual solid proof of its existence.
NASA has to try and keep us all intrigued somehow; so why not through marketing propaganda of a supposed alien microbe find? Then we can keep funding their multi-billion dollar adventures so we can get higher quality HD pictures back of red dust and rock. Hmmm, fascinating. Maybe next time the pictures will be in HHD and we’ll have a live streaming webcam showing us the latest rock movements on the ole’ Red Planet 🙂 I’m all for some great science and pushing into new frontiers of knowledge, but spending that much money on a little kids Star Trek dream, especially during this economy, does not seem very reasonable, or wise for that matter … that is if that’s what they are trying to implicitly say of course.
Maybe we should try working on actual problems that exist in our world instead of spending possibly trillions of dollars on a phantom. Lack of fresh water concerns me a lot more than nonsense elitist scientific “orthodoxy”.
Update on 4/17/2009:
It is now up to 700 international scientists who are dissenting.
This is just too good not to comment on:
Just read some of the quotes from top-level, international scientists at the UN conference on climate change. Unbelievable. To think that Gore and the media would tout man-made global warming as an absolute, definitive consensus in the scientific community … it is a total, flat-out lie. There’s nothing else to call it really. There is apparently more to come from this conference soon.
Everything may shift around us at extremely fast rates … and yet God and His Gospel remain constant. Plant yourself in Him and His grace to us in Christ, for, “the times, they are a-changin’,” really really quickly.
When presenting scientific data fairly, it is important to give long-term perspective and context to that data. Yet, when we see CNN or MSNBC scientists come on and present their data, we only see the past 200 years, or maybe even the past couple thousand years. But what about over the long-term, say, within the past 425,000 years? You don’t see that very often.
Typically, when presented with the Earth’s historical average temperature, we are presented with a chart looking somewhat like this, you know, which as the line moves closer to the right, the colors mysteriously fade from blue to red, to somehow subliminally indicate things are getting out of hand and the Darwinian Doomsday is at the door:
If this is the only information you see (above), along with a long-winded scientific explanation that we are on a collision course with the forces of evolution if we don’t act, of course you are going to think we are on the verge of a global meltdown (literally) and need to work to try and steer the global temperature so that our coastal cities are not flooded from the ice caps melting, or whatever.
But what if you saw data that is not presented in the media, say, by other scientists who are actually being fair and giving you the larger context, the long-term picture of the climate temperature? Would you be convinced then that there was very little we could do about it? Well, here’s a long-term chart for you from the past 425,000 years:
As we can see, there has historically been quite a bit of fluctuation over the millenniums. Could it be there are many, many other factors beyond our ability to control that affect whether the atmosphere warms or cools? The overall, long-term evidence shows there are rather large fluctuations that have always occurred, yet life has persisted somehow for quite some time now. I mean, you would think maybe there’s a sovereign God in control of all things or something.
Now that’s not to say we should not try and take care of the Earth God has granted to us through reducing pollution and creating more efficient systems to create energy. I’m all for that. But I sure could do without the atheistic, gloomy worldview the “Going Green” and climate change movements arise from. And it would be nice if the small group of environmentalists out there would stop imposing on the majority a, might I say, religious worldview (in the form of legal reform, the very thing they accuse Christians of doing), a worldview system that is evangelizing short-term data alone to “prove” their case, all the while ignoring the long-term data readily available for their viewing pleasure, all in an attempt to back up what they view as the inevitable Darwinian destiny we all face IF we don’t act now.
I believe all of this is really just smoke and mirrors for systematically implementing a form of utopian socialism on a global scale, the fundamental theories of which we saw worked so well in practice in the USSR, China, Cuba, and North Korea, and now Venezuela, in upholding human rights and all. But never mind history and lessons that could be learned there. All of this just sounds like something to believe in, to make us feel “right” in ourselves, to unite us as one, to bring about some sort of eternal, permanent meaning to our existence, doing the thing religion does for people (particularly Christianity) without the fuss of believing that we will one day be held accountable by an infinitely powerful God who created us for His purposes, not ours, whom we have rebelled against with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength, in every way imaginable, with every faculty of our being.
I guess I just do not understand why “believers” of the Darwinian persuasion even care really about going green if “from dust we come, to dust we go?” Who really cares within their worldview? We just die and that’s it. So what’s all the fuss about climate change in our culture? These things just happen, it’s the way things are. Why try to find any significance or meaning? Or why try and redeem any purpose for humanity if we are no better or worse (really of no more value) than rocks or fox’s or water? Could it be possible we have built within our being the inherent knowledge of an eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, almighty, awesome God who spoke matter into existence “ex-nihilo,” from nothing? And could it be we inherently sense that we do have meaning as humans beyond that of trees, rocks, and even other animals, but that we are somehow disconnected from that meaning, alienated even? I do believe it does. Scripture attests to all of this. Here is the meaning we are seeking after … http://www.westerfunk.net/gospel/
Charts and data taken from http://www.seed.slb.com/en/scictr/watch … change.htm
Update at 4:19 pm:
Only Gore could take a giant natural disaster where people are suffering in ways we can’t imagine right now from our cushy offices and use it to push his marketing agenda:
http://www.businessandmedia.org/article … 60205.aspx
There are so many other factors involved in the fluctuations of the climate than is reported by the “Going Green” CO2 profit-marketing movement … why don’t we listen to actual climatologists for once instead of Gore who knows nothing of the astrophysics affecting the climate? http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20080103/94768732.html
The default response of conservatives seems to be one of ignoring scientific facts simply because global warming appears to be an issue taken on primarily by liberals (and if they don’t fight the liberals at every turn on every issue, they may lose an election in the future, as if that was the end of the world). I think it is highly ignorant of many fellow conservatives to have such a bias that you cast aside scientific data and facts for the sake of political lines. Can we be reasonable together for once? The actual debate in the scientific world over global warming (where it actually matters) has nothing to do with whether or not the Earth itself is warming. The facts are indisputable: the Earth is warming (Read this Senate testimonial from the Director of the National Climatic Data Center, if you want facts; his understanding based on actual numbers is that global warming is caused by both natural occurrences as well as man’s influence). The average global temperature is on an upward trend, and according to computer models, it will continue to increase this century based on many variables input into the equations that calculate these models. No reasonable, scholarly scientist debates whether or not the atmosphere is warming: it is in fact warming, based on mathematical calculations that are indisputable.
But here’s the real question of the debate that not every scientist agrees on: is global warming being caused by man or is it a natural occurrence beyond the realm of our control (that is beyond the realm of being able to do anything about it), or is it both? The debate is not about IF the Earth is warming, but whether or not man is causing the warming through the emission of green-house gases (CO, CO2 and CH4). And I for one, along with many other scientists, including officials at the National Weather Service (what I would deem to be a very reliable source), do not believe man is causing the warming trend as many suppose. Some of them dispute that, however there are many who do not. Is it a mere coincidence all the planets in our solar system are increasing in temperature at around the same pace as the Earth (article)? Hmm, could it be the sun has increased its energy output at a greater rate than anytime in the past 1000 years, thus causing warmer temperatures here as well as on venus, mars, jupiter and all the other planets? Could that be causing a majority of the warming? Seems reasonable to me. And if that’s the case, what in the world are we going to do about it by passing Senate bills that make global warming a national security issue?
Don’t get me wrong, I have no problem with reducing pollution through progressive infrastructure changes (world-wide, not just in the U.S.), but that will take some time to migrate everyone off of the current systems we have in place (you cannot do this overnight, or even in a few years). I don’t like breathing in toxic fumes everyday, nor does my asthmatic wife. So please, if we can reduce pollution, by all means, do it. My issue with the global warming craze though is the rashness of it all. In the twinkling of an eye, major companies, government officials, and others in our society are going green at every turn (what that even means as to how “going green” creates effective changes in the atmosphere, how there is a direct correlation to global warming, I have no idea). This just sounds like a marketing ploy to me to get you to buy their products, or vote for them, which is highly deceitful in my opinion.
Global warming is happening, but man may only be contributing to a very small percentage of the actual change in the global temperature. Should we stop polluting? Sure. But how are we going to create effective change at the industrial level, the place it matters the most for the global atmosphere? But even then, total green house gases (CO, CO2 and CH4) account for only 2% of the total of atmospheric gases. And of that, man is contributing a very small amount (something like 2% from what I’ve heard). So instead of being so rash and going from one extreme to another, maybe we should allocate most of our time, money and resources to preventing some of the catastrophes that may result from the indisputable rising temperatures instead of limiting any and everything within our infrastructure that makes our society run. “Going green” in every sector of the economy does not seem very effective. This is the natural tendency of man, to swing from one extreme to another. Again, hear me out in case you missed my position (because that seems to happen to almost every conservative I speak with about this): the Earth IS warming, but man IS PROBABLY NOT causing a majority of it.