I support your intent of countering the “intelligent” design “theorists” and their stealth efforts to bring in Creationism into the classroom (and kick out science). However, what’s this business of pirates vs. global surface temperature. Sure, you make a point that there’s a difference between correlation and causation. Perhaps you’re trying to point out that the true cause of GW may not be man-made green-house gas emissions. Well, the scientists have studied this problem and have come to the conclusion that it is. Please don’t give with one hand and take with the other. You support the scientists in Darwinian evolution and on the other hand don’t in GW science.
I suggest you remove your references to pirates and global surface temperature (your curve does look compelling though).
Regards,
Alan
[A response: No deal, Alan. I tend to agree with the Global Warming hypothesis, and I certainly think it makes sense to err in that direction whether or not you agree with it - I’m all for conservation and green technologies. But, there is an almost religious type of dogma surrounding the Global Warming issue that makes me uncomfortable. Global warming is probably happening, but that is a world apart from saying it is Truth that must be supported. I’m against dogma and a priori reasoning, not any specific beliefs. -bobby]
As a physicist it’s nice to see Alan support our effort to keep creationism out of science class rooms. Pity that he probably takes the pirates-GW thing a bit too serious.
.
And for those doubtful about GW, please realise that burning fossil fuels not only releases CO2 but also things like SO2 and NOx. These are undesireable in just about anyones book, no controversies there (as far as I know). Cutting down on fossil fuel use makes sense, even if you don’t believe CO2 causes GW. And since reserves are limited it may also avoid conflict over dwindling resources. (end of preaching, we now return you to your normal program)
gold?
In science, there are usually multiple competing theories on something before one wins out. At the moment we may be a bit of the underdog, but also showing how much backing we have from the scientific community as well as our graph, it is almost impossible to say we’re wrong. Meanwhile, there are multiple holes and uncertainties with other scientific models of global warming, most of which completely ignore pirates.
woooosh
some people just don’t get it
Precicly dave, there is no evidence to suggest that global warming HASNT been caused by the decrease in pirate numbers. As a close minded individual who chooses to ignor all overwhelming scientific evidence and instead believe in the pirates theory which has no grounding in fact what so ever, i intend to do my bit for global warming by always wearing a pirate hat and possibly getting a pet parrot.
Alan,
Creationism has been refused by 99% of the scientific community. GW so far does not have a unified decision on scope, causation, and future outlook. Basically the scientific communnity has not agreed yet on the issue. The truth is that both sides tend to exagerate the facts. Which menas that the anwer is somewhere in the middle.
Is the world warming? Yes, but not at the rate some are saying.
Is it man made? Yes and no. We are coming out of a recent mini-ice age, but at the same time chave contributed a large amount to warming.
Is it the end of the world? No. The forecast of eco nuts is the end of human civilization…but really it will be more like a lifestyle change.
WE NEED to stop it now? Not really. We can stop some things…but it just simply costs more money to reduce carbon than it takes to build some dikes in the future.
We are to blame? Yes and no. We live in a living world that has gone through startling changes without any type of human intervention for millions of years. It is extremely arrogant to think that we have that large of an impact. The world will still be here long after we are all gone…
I agree with bobby. Just like creationist idiots, there are too many scientists that enter this debate with a preset conclusion, and then try to find “facts” that support their conclusion. That is just bad science. And that is the hardest thing about issues that are this polarizing.
Do you think Alan knows what a question mark is.
hey guys, sorry i haven’t been around much (if u even remember me)
Anyway… when did we start supporting Darwinian evolution???
FSM made midgets then teh midgets turned into pirates and…
People came from pirates, end of story.
@Logan the grog keeper
Of course we still remember you. Welcome back and a pasta-filled 2008 to you.
As far as support for evolution is concerned, we do support it in the sense of letting children hear all sides of the story. In the same way that creationists and IDiots wouldn’t want just their religious mythology to be taught. Wouldn’t they? I’m sure they wouldn’t be so dishonest, now would they?! I mean, that would be sneaky. So much at odds with their own values about not bearing false witness etc. I’m sure they wouldn’t stoop so low. Come on, would you NOT TRUST CREATIONISTS??!!
A call upon ‘Alan’ and other scientists who read the forums on this website,
I will post this as a response to Alan’s post as well, regarding global warming, http://www.venganza.org/2007/12/31/from-a-scientist.htm
Alan, I appreciate the well thought out post to the website, and on behalf of the pastafarian community, I would like to thank you for breaking free from the masses in spelling correctly.
I would like to hear you response to a debate between myself and Dr. David H. Berkebile, formerly of DuPont, and Larry Evans, formerly of numerous Tire and polymer-based companies. Both have hundreds of patents to their name, and dozens of papers and essays.
After a rigorous, lengthy debate, the following was agreed. While it has been proven true that there is a large portion over the southern hemisphere, specifically the south pole, absent, it has not yet been proven to have existed. Current scientific processes lack the ability to prove that that specific portion of atmosphere ever existed. We came up with the following explanations.
1) The rate of emissions and their effect on the atmosphere within the last thirty years is fractionally smaller than the rate of emissions and their effect during the nineteenth and early-mid twentieth century. While this is untestable due to the time boundary, it is very possible, nay likely, that any significant damage to the atmosphere done by homo sapiens took place between 1800 and 1950 sue to the large-scale industrialization of the superpowers of the world, namely England, America, Russia, and the majority of Europe, china and Japan. During that time period, large quantities of fossil fuels were burned without regard to the environment. Within the last, say, fifty years, though, the rate of emissions has dropped greatly, and continues to decrease, as the awareness proportionally rose.
2) Many millennia ago scientists agree a large asteroid or meteor impacted the planet. This collision, purportedly the cause for the extinction of the dinosaurs, caused trillions of metric tons of ash, sediment, and other debris to be launched into the atmosphere of the planet, blocking out the sun for years. This one event could be the culprit of the missing ozone above the southern hemisphere. Such a catastrophic event could have very well done whatever damage was done to the atmosphere if, in fact, there was a cause leading to the lack of an atmosphere above the southern hemisphere.
3) Since the birth of the worldly body we came to know as Earth many millennia ago, before the purported super-continent Pangaea, the planet has been undergoing significant temperature and climate changes. Some millennia the changes would be low, some fifteen degrees Fahrenheit. Other millennia, the average planetary temperature would fluctuate as much as thirty degrees which, in a decrease, combined with the ash scattered by the impact of a large meteor or asteroid, sent the planet into a pre-human global cooling known as the Ice Age (according to numerous paleontologists and archaeologists) could be the suspect convicted of destroying ozone.
4) The final explanation is simply this; there never was an atmosphere above the southern hemisphere. It is very possible that the atmosphere did not exist, and that is why life could have come to be on earth. It is possible that had there been ozone completely surrounding the planet, the solar rays that heat the planet and are held like a convection oven by the ozone, could have baked the planet, that earth could have overheated, and life never would have come to be.
I am very interested to see any response Alan, or other scientists of any background, have to the above presented theories. Having said this, I think Bobby Henderson is right to ridicule the dogmatic aphorism surrounding the global warming theory purported to be scientific fact. As scientist, you know well there is no such thing as scientific fact, only theory, validated theory, and law, which can be overturned or edited (Newton’s third law: Matter and energy can be neither created nor destroyed – Changed after data collected from the blast of the testing of the first nuclear bombs), but never fact. While we know this, men such as Al Gore [self-proclaimed inventor of the internet] receive the Nobel Prize for Science simply because he threw a few concerts and attended some gatherings in the name of global warming. As is the interjection of Jesus Christ and God into classrooms as scientific anything, this is an affront to the scientific community, a thorn in the side of human progress, and a step toward the another spiral into the Dark Ages. I think the ridicule of these issues creates a public sentiment against them, or at least draws more attention and criticism to the issues at hand, a humorous method of solving issues scientists are battling against; stupidity. I want to hear from those who have educated opinions, not hatemail claiming God is so angry He’s cooking the earth with a side of grits. That’s crazy. He’d rather enjoy Pasta.
-An American for a better America
I am tottaly with Logan the Grog Keeper. Darwanian Evolution is pure bullcrap, the FSM created the midgits, which I am a straight descendant due to the fact that I am only 1.54m, and the trees and the dinosaurs.
.
Ramen…
Dear Alan:
Thank you for your kind letter. I feel the need to point out however that your so called “science” merely confirms what we already knew. Pirates are cool. Therefore, more pirates = cooler global surface temperature. Green house emissions, quite possibly an effect of fewer pirates, is a symptom and not a cause.
Presto, Ragu, Ramen
Lets keep focused here, guys. Our key purpose is to keep religious nonsense out of science classrooms by attempting to push even more nonsensical religious notions into science classes until the creationists cry “uncle”. Let’s keep the FSM out of legitimate scientific debate. He’d just change the results with his noodly appendages anyway.
.
I have been following the evidence on Global warming since the 70’s, and it is alarming. Our CO2 levels are skyrockting, our glaciers are melting, our climate patterns are changing in unpredictable ways, and if the ocean warms enough to cause the melting of the deep-sea methane hydrate deposits, we’re sunk. Or, at least, Manhattan is. And Bangladesh. And South Florida. I’ve been watching for years, and I have been seeing, not dogma, but a scientific consensus that has developed and solidified over the long-term. Just like science is supposed to work.
.
So, my next car will be a Prius, and I have been switching to compact fluorescent light bulbs. And I telecommute. And I recycle.
.
Now, lets get back to Fundie-bashing! And Piracy! And Lasagna!
.
RAmen
Blasphemy!!!! You can’t make me believe my aerosol hairspray has ANYTHING to do with global warming!!!! I am not part of the problem!!! I participate in Pirate behavior on a regular basis, therefore, I am part of the SOLUTION!!! If more people would get this into their thick domes, then MAYBE it wouldn’t be 80 degrees outside right now!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hi, everyone. This is my first post, so please be gentle. I can remember (barely) that back in college in the 1970’s, we were very concerned about the potential for global climate change, and we discussed various scenarios that we felt had significant potential to actually occur. The Big Scary Idea was that we would reach a “tipping point”, where all at once the oceanic circulating currents would shut down, and , instant ice age in the North Atlantic. Well, it’s been snowing pretty enthusiastically here most of the day, but I just looked out the window, and no glaciers. How boring. Global climate change is pretty much an ongoing fact of life. Sometimes it’s warmer, and other times … wait for it … it’s cooler! I am not averse to the idea that some of the current warming trend may be anthropogenic, but then again, maybe not all that much. The last time I attended a lecture and forum on carbon sequestration, they still had no idea where most of the carbon humans generate anually actually ends up. I forget the actual amount, but it was a really big number. So, being a practical (albeit superfluous) terrestrial, I intend, like Ubi Dubium, to do what I can as an individual. I try to minimize fuel consumption, and maximize pasta consumption. My wife makes a dynamite sauce.
Arrr!
pirates are the answer to all problems
The reason I don’t buy into the whole CO2=Global warming is because of how little CO2 there is in the air. There is currntly 380 Parts per million of CO2 give or take 5. 380 out of 1,000,000 is the reason the globe is warming? And it increased from 316 to 380 in the last 120 years or so.
.
The book State of Fear by Michael Crichton has a fantastic representation that I will quote from.
.
If you take the breakdown of air and put it into a chart that resembles a football field thats 100 yards long. Nitrogen will take you all the way to the 78 yard line, add Oxygen and you are now at the 99 yard line. Most of whats left is argon which brings you about 3 1/2 inches away, about the thickness of the chalkline. Co2 only represents about an inch of whats left.
.
Thats 1 inch in a 100 yard football field, Now we have all been told that CO2 has increased in the last 50 years. Do you know how much on our football field? 3/8 of an inch, less then the thickness of a pencil.
.
This is the reason that I can not accept the fact that CO2 is the driving force behind the warming of the globe.
.
And if you were OPEC and wanted to drive the price of oil up how would you do it? Maybe manufacture shortages in supply? Or remind everyone that it wont last forevereven if we have enough for the nex 200 years.
@Prophet Bobby and Benny–I understand the problem of the dogma of global warming. Still, I’d rather err on the side of caution, and recycle, cut down on my driving, etc. By the way, has anybody else noticed that the abbreviation for global warming and the first two initials of the US’s current erstwhile president are the same. Proof to me that both are bad and need to be stopped.
.
@Alan–your concern is noted, but perhaps you should read the Wikipedia entry on FSMism. It mentions the pirate/global warming chart, and the problems of statistical significance vs. actual reality. In other words, it’s a joke. Please take it as such.
Ubi Dubium
How bad could it be??? Suirely a glacier becoming a water slide has it’s advantages??? All this scare mongeringing is making me thirsty… Ubi Dubium, Ubi Dubium, Ubi Dubium …say it three times and the problems go away…
Satire is a great way to teach.
But there is a problem with satire. Lots of folks don’t understand what it is, even, apparently, scientists.
I think Alan needs to look up the concept.