Greenhouse Effect and Global Warming Were Known About in the Late 50’s

Greenhouse Effect and Global Warming Were Known About in the Late 50’s

In his latest Climate Denial Crock of the Week Peter Sinclair points out that we’ve known about the effects of CO2 and the Greenhouse effect since the 1950’s. The debate has never really been over whether CO2 can effect the world’s temperature, it’s always been about figuring out how much and how soon. I’ve known about this since the 80’s, and it was one of the factors that convinced me to become an advocate for nuclear energy – I was reading debates by some of my favorite authors about the various dooms posed by the Club of Rome and others, and nuclear energy seemed to address most if not all of those best. It was clean, and it could be cheap – with nuclear we could beat four of the horsemen: hunger, water shortages, global warming, and population.

During the past three years I’ve considered that the others were more important, and still do to this day. I published quite a few articles posing challenges to some of the more alarmist of the global warming claims thinking we had plenty of time to get there and that other matters were more important. That focus has changed, since the data keeps stacking up and getting more alarming, it’s time we start addressing global warming because waiting until the second half of the century will be too late. Something I had thought we could procrastinate on has come due.

I still do not think cap and trade and the other schemes are sufficient, and I don’t like them because they are coercive. Those type of plans usually fail. Instead I prefer that our country become the prime provider of clean, cheap, nuclear energy for a needy world — besides that clean energy is a bull market and blue sky – we need to stay ahead of that market for the future prosperity of our nation. Instead of billions in money flowing to other countries in a mad shell game we should instead just help build reactors. You can see some of the other factors that we need to consider and why nuclear is so important if we are to keep it real in this article where I roundly slam Al Gore.

UPDATE: Here’s one of the early modern articles from 1956 on CO2 and its effects, it wasn’t the slightest bit controversial when it appeared.

Creationism: Still Crazy After all These Years

Creationism: Still Crazy After all These Years

Eugenie Scott is always a good listen.

Teach the Controversy!

Teach the Controversy!

Today’s tongue in cheek video humor comes from NCSE:

Why Scientists Accept Evolution

Why Scientists Accept Evolution

Don Exodus probably disagrees with me along a wide spectrum of political views, but he gets science right.

Pluto Rediscovered

A great documentary on the Dwarf planet Pluto from National Geographic, watch closely for one of the coolest bumper stickers you’ve ever seen.

Amazing Nanotech Breakthrough

Amazing Nanotech Breakthrough

IBM scientists have made an amazing breakthrough in Nanotech: they can now measure charge on single atom. What this portends for microscale computer technology remains to be seen. Here’s the video.

IDA: Darwinius Masillae

IDA: Darwinius Masillae

This is an important fossil find due the the age and completeness of the fossil, and coming from 47 MYA it’s at an important branch in evolution. It’s not the missing link, it’s another missing link. Please watch the report, keep in mind that the news story is a bit overdone as is the style of all Murdoch outlets, and come to think of it most science reporting everywhere.

More on how this might not be “the” missing link that that news outlets are painting it as at Evolving Thoughts. It’s definitely important and shows some characteristics that are exciting, but more data needed before it can be known if IDA is mainline or offshoot from our path.

More from Carl Zimmer

PZ Meyers has more at Panda’s Thumb

Charles at Little Green Footballs has more as well in the ongoing debate over science and the Republican party. This is just the latest fossil that the shills at the Discovery Institute and their flacks are working to dismiss, a tedious kneejerk reaction.

The hype, the documentary, the book has the science community all abuzz with how this was released. There’s a good and bad side to it. Sensationalizing science does gain public attention to science which is sorely needed in the years ahead, on the other hand overblown reporting allows misinterpretation, and niches that Discovery Institute can claw into with “controversy” in mind. With their stable of prolific spin meisters and outright liars they’ll have the conservative public believing this is a plastic model before you know it.

A Panda Baby Step Back

A Panda Baby Step Back

Hoppe at Panda’s thumb backs off a bit from his case for NCSE’s approach after further analysis and debate, and once again I support his conclusion with the added information.

Just as ID should not be taught in Science class, NCSE should not be suggesting means to reconcile science and religion, but instead should stick to the fact that many people have and do reconcile evolution and religion. That’s fine since it’s science and empirical. [ I have a mea culpa here, I skimmed part of the articles on this because it was more back and forth than fact, so I missed that they were in fact suggesting means to reconcile.]

Hoppe argues that NCSE should use their strength which is Science, and leave the religious means for accomodating evolution to churches rather than suggesting a particular method; doing that puts them in a religious rather than scientific realm and could lead to pitfalls.

Here’s my original article:

Evolution, Pragmatism or Agnosticism?

In the Evolution discussion Richard Hoppe at Panda’s Thumb dissents from the Coyne/PZ Meyers view. I’m in agreement with Hoppe, but it’s not pragmatism alone that makes it so.

The pragmatism goes like this: Since we hope to convince more conservatives that teaching religion in science class is a bad thing, then we shouldn’t hand out the big smackdown to religion by essentially agreeing with Discovery Institute’s dichotomous view that to be a good Christian you must be opposed to science, since the Coyne/Meyers version of that is just the obverse wedge: If you support science then you must automatically deny G-d.

One is philosophy, the other religion – neither wedge should be allowed in science. Ayn Rand said “Politics is philosophy in action.” If we allow the teaching of a politics in science that denies G-D, then not only are we diminishing Science and being unpragmatic, we are also proselityzing a philosophy.

That’s probably just as unconstitutional as teaching religion as science, and as you will see below it’s not scientific. If the rabid atheists  must have that view taught then like religion it belongs in history, philosophy, and social classes, but not in science classes.

One of my heroes in this ongoing political struggle is Genie Scott and she explains this much better than I in the video below.

Even as a child I did not have faith, and PZ in many ways is like an ex-smoker in that he had faith and changed his mind – now he wants everyone else to. So he’s taking a hardline and saying that Evolution’s defenders should go on offense in his reply to Hoope here

Science is Agnostic

Science is Agnostic

Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education gives an excellent lecture on why the dichotomy presented by the Discovery Institute is false, and why importing atheist philosophy into science class isn’t right either. Eugenie’s new book is also available at Amazon, see the link below the video.

Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction

Leo Berman Introduces Bill to Allow Creationist Schools to Grant Science Degrees

sedimentary-rock

Leo Berman Introduces Bill to Let Creationist Schools Grant Science Degrees

Leo Berman,  Republican Texas state congresscritter, has introduced a bill that would allow private schools to issue Science degrees with exceptions to science standards. This exemption from state standards is specifically designed for the Dallas-based Institute For Creation Research, a Young Earth Creationist think tank that searches for evidence of God through pseudo-science.

Leo’s known for bone-headed bill attempts, like this one that attempts to subvert the US Constitution at state level in determining what US citizenry consists of.

Allowing ICR to issue science degrees is ridiculous, especially in view of their support of biblical inerrancy, outright lies, and pseudo-science, (hell, these guys are so off the deep end, let’s call is “Suedo-Science”.)

It lowers the standards for all science degrees from Texas if allowed, and what the heck is next? Degrees in Astronomy from the Velikovsky institute? Degrees in Cosmology from Harun Yahya? Geology degrees from the Shirley McLaine school of crystal gazing?

To put this in perspective take a look at the picture, click on the thumbnail and enlarge it. You can see a series of striae of sedimentary rock: silt and detritus deposited over eons and eons and eons. The silt was compacted gradually over time into rock from the steadily increasing weight above it. ICR teaches that it was all the outcome of one flood. If you believe that I still have a bridge for sale, and it’s not only a bargain, but really pretty.

More at :

Science Examiner

NCSE

Madness Beckons

Space City Skeptics