One notices a growing superstition about anthropogenic global warming (AGW) that includes expressions of alarm about the many men who do not accept that the recent hurricanes making landfall in America are undeniable proof of AGW (now, called climate change).
But that is to be expected, considering the poor quality of reporting on the question of hurricanes and whether or not such hurricanes happen more frequently than they did in the past owing to putative AGW.
Cui bono? Well, the collectivists are delighted to fear-monger men, as that is conducive to getting them to accept a larger and even more intrusive central state, but is it true that we poor Floridians are experiencing more hurricanes/cyclones that at any time in the past?
No. Men can type “1886 Atlantic hurricane season” into their browser and teach their own selves about the facts. Now, admittedly, such an action is likely to arm the inquisitive man against the superstition that the state is trying to seed in the souls of free men about AGW. But, one can always remind their own selves of the words of King David, who noted that there existed only a single step between he and death, and so one can continue to fear what he cannot control — if that makes him feel important.
Larry Spencer, Wellington
Mr. Spencer, I will ask again, are you a young-earth creationist or just a creationist?
Either one, added to your belief that Adam was a real person and your calling of Dr. Louda a heretic really removes you from any scientific discussion as you don’t understand what he was saying.
You have also called me an autodidact (self-taught), yet, you seem to refuse to disclose your incredible scientific credentials. I will be glad to talk to you of my degrees and training in science/science methods and processes as well as my work in research methods in business. And one can and needs to be self-taught in a way. One must always keep up on new developments in the scientific world, but it is important to have the basics of science understanding going into all new readings and researches.
Mr. Spencer, it seems that your science knowledge ended with the New Testament, a lot has gone on since then.
Evolution is a slow slow process, billions of years to get from the first replicating molecules to their self-assembly to their then coding for future replication to the first chemosynthetic (using reduced chemical species as electron (energy) sources to the first anoxygenic photosynthesizing cyanobacteria and Archeae to oxygenic photosynthesis which then allowed heterotrophic organisms (bacteria, zooplankton, worms, dinosaurs, you and me) to evolve.
Climate change is real, the Milankovitch cycles of hot ad cold Earth are natural but as the current warm cycle was ending we (man) reversed the start of the cooling trend. Carbon dioxide is but one of the global warming gases (add methane, freons, etc.) and the small warming effect its increase has allows more of the largest greenhouses gases-WATER-to evaporate. Water vapor (aka gas) is the main reason we can actually live on earth–it traps outgoing albedo infrared radiation. So CO2 is the switch, a switch that man has turned to the on position. Again ANTHROPOGENIC (man generated climate change (or how about climate change augmentation?) is real. Global warming IS affecting the poles more than the tropics.
Oh by the way Antarctica is a continent that has been part of Earth since the continents formed as Earth cooled.
Science is a slow methodical, constantly checked and rechecked process.
The naysayers, including so-called (his words for others) President T-Rump need to abandon the ‘let’s move ahead with fossil fuel development; stop ignoring science, renewable energy and the environment.
The ancient Americans (Indians) have stated hundreds of years ago ” We do not inherit the land from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children.’
Thus get real in thoughts about the present and especially the future–if we have one.
Sincerely,
Dr. J. William Louda, Research Professor-FAU
Environmental Biogeochemist.
Dear Dr. Louda. Your first paragraph suggests a teleology present in the initial rudimentary forms of existence. What accounts for that?
Who do you say is the smartest man who ever lived?
Dr. J. William Louda September 29, 2017 at 11:47 am
“Evolution is a slow slow process, billions of years to get from the first replicating molecules to their self-assembly to their then coding for future replication to the first chemosynthetic (using reduced chemical species as electron (energy) sources to the first anoxygenic photosynthesizing cyanobacteria and Archeae to oxygenic photosynthesis which then allowed heterotrophic organisms (bacteria, zooplankton, worms, dinosaurs, you and me) to evolve….”
This is how the false faith in macroevolution is proselytised – by assigning to mutations and random selection a purpose even though purpose or design, teleology, is not part of the false faith of macroevolution; better yet, teleology would he a macroevolutionary heresy.
“Thus get real in thoughts about the present and especially the future–if we have one.”
Dr. Louda claims to be a product of macroevolution which, obviously, excludes the reality of objective morality (how does such an abstract intellectual concept result from a mutation?) and so he can have no legitimate concern about the future given his belief in the false faith of macroevolution – at best it might be a mutation but it is too early to tell if the mutation inherited by Dr. Louda will survive rather than, like 99% of all mutations, cease to exist, and so it would be silly to insist on his mutation having any consequence- especially since, as we are so often scolded, macroevolution involves billions of years …
Of course, one is happy to learn of his heresy as one suspects his wife is also happy he is a macroevolutionary heretic (assuming he is married)because it would not be comforting for most women to discover their husband was attracted to her simply owing to a heritable trait resulting from a mutation.
O, and not to be too provocative, but Adam was the smartest man who ever lived and it has been downhill since then.
Dear Mr. Rosen. Well, I tired…
You were asked to respond to my challenge of your false assertion and you did not have the decency to do so and so I feel under no obligation to respond to you rhetorically baiting the various bugbears in your ideological zoo.
As for macroevolution, there has yet to be any scientific evidence- to say nothing of a claim- that two animals of the same species could copulate and produce an offspring that has one or more organs that neither of the two copulators had but such is the “science” you boast about while denigrating those whom you have virtually no information about.
Were there anywhere near the amount of scientific evidence about your unsubstantiated claims as there are the numbers of your unprovoked and nasty assumptions about another, then you might have drawn me into an exchange but your arrogance and ignorance are a fetid combination I want no part of.
For those who might chance upon out brief exchange, here is a link to some useful information that eviscerates many of the pretentious claims of those who boast of their scientific knowledge.
http://www.cfact.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Climate-Talking-Points.pdf
That is the thing about the internet, it has many useful tools that help the autodidact liberate his own self from the ideological straight jackets our betters have fitted for us; all for our own good, of course, because we are benighted .
Mr. Spencer… You are really starting to be boring with your ignorance. Are you wondering how I knew where you stood on the Creation/Evolution argument without you even ever mentioning it? Well, it is because when someone shows their obvious ignorance in climate science they are usually also ignorant in biology and many other sciences and in the scientific method and processes. Can I ask, is the Earth 6,000 years old (Are you a young-earth creationist or just a creationist?).
We know your climate science and biological science levels are low, can we assume that you are deficient in Geology, Astronomy, Physics, Paleontology, and a host of other sciences?
Also, one thing scientists are trained in is to look at sources, to be unbiased and wait for evidence, sometimes overwhelming evidence. If you look at the link you sent you will note that the group that put out the information (CFACT) is, by definition a biased group! To all non-scientific people out there: Look to your sources of information (especially on the Internet), question everything, dig deeper….. Mr. Spencer you would do well to learn this. I would be glad to volunteer to teach you about science, scientific method, scientific processes, vetting of sources, etc. (and we can stay away from Creation/Evolution, Climate Change – we can discuss just how to go about research methods).
And if you do not take me up on this offer, let’s end this as people like you will forever be living in the backwaters of science and scientific research. There is no use even in me asking what your scientific credentials are, I would hate for you to embarrass yourself.
I will end with this quote (attributed to Stephan Hawking and Daniel Boorstein):
“The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge”
Mr. Spencer, you need not worry though, you have not even shown “the illusion of knowledge”
Dear Mr. Rosen. Where did I write that there is a conspiracy to socialise the entire world system?
The subtext of your letter is that you understand science and I do not yet your putative scientific knowledge resulted in you getting wrong what is directly in front of your face; you see things that do not exist.
The science you aver “simply is,” similarly, sees things that are not there – AGW – and, like you, invents evidence for its unsubstantiated claims.
Mr. Spencer, you said ” the collectivists are delighted to fear-monger men, as that is conducive to getting them to accept a larger and even more intrusive central state”, this is your conspiracy theory.
However, this is really not the important issue. The real issue is “Science” and the understanding of it. And as far as my “putative scientific knowledge”, well, that comes from years of the study of science for my degrees, and then decades of continuing those studies on my own. It has also included some writings on “Science”. In the case of Climate Change I have to agree with the 99% of “scientists working directly in the field” (and this is an important aspect) that man has had and will continue to have a major impact, on climate change. You choose to relate to the 1% who disagree.
Just a guess, but I also feel you agree with the 1% of “scientists working directly in the field” that Creation Science (Creationism, etc.) is real and Evolution (99% Scientists in agreement) is not. These two things often go hand in hand.
Mr. Spencer, simply put, it is a shame that you really do not understand the processes of science, which clouds the way you look at things. Recently I saw a t-shirt that says “Science doesn’t care what you believe in”. Too true. And again, I feel sad at our American Education system.
Also, I am glad that there is now a dialogue on this paper, somethign that has been lacking for a long while.
What an amazingly incoherent letter. I do seem to get that Mr. Spencer does not believe that man-made global warming/climate change is occurring. He believes the news of this is a conspiracy to socialize the entire world system. Amazing.
The take-away I get from this letter is that of a person who has little or no understanding of science. He does not understand science in general, how science works, the Scientific Method, peer-reviewed and peer-duplicated research, climatology, climate science, climate change, global warming, man’s influence on the planet, etc. I could go on, but his letter just shows the sorry state of the American education system.
Mr. Spencer, please stop watching only FOX for your Climate Change information. There is much, much more to it than the number of hurricanes or a simple temperature change in an area or two. Science doesn’t matter whether you believe in it or not, it just is – and this is something Mr. Spencer doesn’t understand. From reading his writings I am also sure there are other scientific (and historical) aspects that elude him.