All CO2 is not the same.
The following has nothing to do with autoimmune. Sorry. It is an editorial I wrote to our local newspaper today after reading an online article which was followed by online comments from readers. The online comments shocked me. The article was about Carbon Offsets. The URL is as follows:
http://nctimes.com/articles/2007/04/16/news/top_stories/19_35_374_15_07.txt
I believe that the loss of objectiviy and clarity about scientific issues is one of the main reasons we do not have autoimmune cures today (see my fetal stem cell blog). Global warming has been deliberately contrived as a controversy and a political debate. It is another area where we in America have been mislead.
Here are my comments on the article:
Con radio hosts and Fox News hosts tell us that we all breathe out CO2. Since CO2 is the greenhouse gas problem that environmental wackos whine about, they must want us to all stop breathing.
Keep breathing.
The CO2 you exhale is part of the normal carbon cycle. You remember the carbon cycle from elementary school. Animals breathe out CO2; then plants, in the presence of sunlight, absorb and combine it with water to make carbohydrates (food). Animals then eat those plants converting the carbohydrates back to CO2 to be breathed back into the atmosphere.
Around and around the carbon flows with no net carbon gain to the system. At least that was the case until about 150 years ago when we started burning fossil sources of carbon. First coal and then oil was burned.
Today fossil carbon is being released into the atmosphere in massive unprecedented quantities. This fossil carbon from coal and oil has been sequestered in deposits in the earth since the Carboniferous age that ended 280 million years ago. For almost 300 million years it has not been in the atmosphere. It has not been part of the carbon cycle.
The only CO2 to be worried about is this long buried fossil CO2. It is the culprit in global warming.
The talking heads have filled many of you with contempt for global warming and for Al Gore. These hosts are often paid under the table as "persons of influence" to change the way you think. It is a kind of payola. They are given money if they repeat misinformation about global warming. The American Petroleum Institute, funded largely by Exxon/Mobile, is the largest contributor of global warming payola to various talking heads and the corporations that employ them.
The tone of the internet comments following the on-line article in yesterday’s NCT article about carbon offsets proves how successful the strategy of paying persons of influence to change public opinion has been.
You should also know that heat and temperature are quite different concepts. Paid con radio hosts regularly mix the two concepts on purpose to confuse you.
Here is the difference. One drop of boiling water has a temperature of 212 degrees Fahrenheit but has very little heat. Drop it on your hand and you are hardly hurt if at all because there is so little heat. Jump into a swimming pool of the same temperature and you are dead in seconds. The 212 degree swimming pool contains a massive, deadly amount of heat even though it is the same temperature as the drop of water.
The swimming pool is far larger, so contains far more heat. The larger the volume of the heated substance, the more heat it can absorb. It is like having bigger and bigger sponges.
Our atmosphere is far bigger than a pool. It is one of the largest heat sponges on earth. When its temperature rises one degree, the increased heat that one degree represents is colossal.
Heat drives the weather engine. The more heat in the atmosphere the greater the power of storms. Added heat also greatly increases the swings in extreme weather (hot and cold). These bouts of extreme weather are beginning to be out of the bounds of the norms our farmers and their crops have adapted to for the last ten thousand years. When crops cannot survive neither can we or our children.
Global warming is a dire threat to every living person on earth today.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Friday, June 1, 2007
Evangelical to Evolutionist
In response to science blog
http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2007/05/the_kasichhamkrauss_instatrans.php
discussing Ken Ham's appearance on the Bill O'Reilly show. Ken Ham was there as a result of the grand opening of his new creation "museum" in Kentucky, I wrote the following about my experiences in my local church with subject of evolution and creationism:
I was raised as an Evangelical Christian. I distinctly remember the first time I saw a book with the word "Evolution" in the title. I literally thought it would burn my hand if I touched it. But I did finally touch it and then read it. I was shocked to find it to be a calm and reasonable explanation of evolution. I had expected it to be dripping with sarcasm and slander regarding religion. There was none. The only place I found sarcasm, emotion-laden arguments and deliberated shading of the truth were in the Creationists books I had purchased at the Institute of Creation Research in Santee, California. (One of those books was by Ken Ham who at the time worked there. By the way, why was he forced to leave and go across the country to Kentucky? What did he believe that Duane Gish and Henry Morris did not?) Because the "christian" books were so angry and nasty in their tone, so very un-Christian, I very slowly began to change my world view. If one attacks and belittles those Christians who ask questions, one cuts off all chance for one's arguments to have the desired impact. At least that would have been the case for me.
The beginning of my personal enlightenment had to do with the realization about the true age of the universe. I realized that if the ICR’s god and the Ken Ham’s god were the god Christians were worshipping then that god was a liar or a deceiver to leave so much evidence on earth and in the heavens that the universe was billions of years old. My Christian friends said that god just made the universe appear to be old. He created starlight in transit to look old. The six million annual varves at the Green River deposits in Utah did not represent 6 million years, they just appeared to because god made them that way to test our faith.
A few years later, creation and evolution became a hot topic in our town as we elected a creationist school board and their beliefs and actions were making national headlines (Vista Unified School District—1992). Because I was a local science teacher and Sunday School teacher, my minister gave me the pulpit for four Sunday evening services in a row. At the time it was a very high interest topic, hundreds attended during those evenings. The vast majority of attendees listened and responded well to the evidence for the ancient age of the earth. Most Christians are moderate. Most have no problem with the ancient age of the earth. Most are decent people who are just trying to find their way in the world.
The forth and last evening service, I brought up evidence for natural selection as the driving force for speciation on the earth. It could be thought of as God’s driving force of creation set woven into the fabric of our universe. Only we see it linearly so it appears cause and effect. God, however, is above time--in all places at all times. His very being sustains the universe. His creative energy is natural selection. This explanation almost worked. I had them with me. But then I brought in the word “evolution.” That word has been so demonized by ministers (who I have heard) that the very word stopped the progress I was making with the congregation. (In our school district the science teachers call it the “E” word, because it dare not be fully enunciated in class.) That evening ended badly.
Eventually I left the church. It became even more fundamentalist. Fiery fundamentalist sermons get emotions flowing. The more emotions, the more people think they have heard a great sermon and the looser they are with their donations at collection plate passing time. A minister only stays as minister as long as he keeps the funds coming in. Eventually the minister who invited me to speak was asked to leave. He was not fiery enough besides his teenage daughter became pregnant out of wedlock. Scandal of scandals! That was it for him. There is no tenure or job security for a minister at an
Evangelical church.
Given the chance, I still think I might be able to win my former congregation and other Evangelicals over to a more evidence based view of the world if I could just show them that Ken Ham’s and ICR’s views lead to a little god (only ruling a tiny 6 thousand light year wide universe) who has left the world full of his deceptions. A deceptive being who lies describes not god but Satan. Maybe if I had had 6 evening services, who knows?
In order to begin to change minds one has to start slowly and always be respectful. Insults end discussions and close minds. Before my first Evolution book, I simply turned off and tuned out when I heard a teacher or professor talk about evolution. Because I knew better I heard nothing. I only thought about how wrong evolution was and how silly and sad were those who did not know it. Only because that first book on evolution was so careful to be objective and gentle was I able to make a transition from the very zealous faith of my mother to a more reasoned view of the world and religion. I also was lucky enough to talk with Eugenie Scott who was also very kind and never insulting. Had I started with Vincent Sarich , “we won, you lost, that settles it,” I am not sure I ever would have gotten passed his insults and anger to the meat of his arguments.
To Hoary Puccoon, those Six Commandments of Science were wonderful. I have also plan to post them to my personal blog with links back. The contrast between the unethical behavior and words of the “christians” espousing “Young Earth” philosophy compared to those who told about evolution pushed me away from the ideas of the creationists. Christians are supposed to be ethical.
Here are Hoary Puccoon's Six Commandments of Science with his commentary:
The whole is-there-a-god thing bores me. But why doesn't anyone emphasize how ethical science is-- and how unethical the creationists look to scientists?
The Six (and counting) Commandments of Science
(1)Thou shalt not lie. Fudging data is a mortal sin, enough to terminate one's career.
(2)Honor thy fathers. You must give credit to the previously-published work of other scientists.
(3)Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor. Misrepresenting another scientist's work merits public exposure and condemnation. (The creationists never understand just how immoral their quote-mining seems to scientists.)
(4)Love thy neighbor. Ad hominem arguments are not acceptable in scientific discourse.
(5)By their works ye shall know them. If Linus Pauling is a legend and Watson and Crick are complete unknowns, whose model of DNA is accepted? W&C's-- because theirs is right and Pauling's was wrong.
(6)Let your yeas be yeas, and your nays, nays. Scientists must define their variables explicitly, and not fudge and say, 'oh, I really meant something else' if their hypothesis is disproven. (This is actually why theism versus atheism doesn't much matter in practicing science. God, whether he/she/it exists or not, is too fuzzy a variable to produce clear results.)
This could probably be worked up to ten commandments, but the point is, scientists, whether theists or atheists, do have strict rules of ethics-- which the creationists constantly violate. This point needs to be hammered into the public discourse. The creationists aren't just getting a few dry facts wrong-- they are undermining the entire ethical basis of science. Letting the fundies get away with claiming they represent morality is, in my opinion, morally wrong.
By the way no one believes in Evolution. The Little God Creationists use this framing to show their followers that evolution is a religion. The goal is to convince the faithful that scientist just want to convert them. This is very frightening to the faithful. To convert is to lose all hope of an afterlife. It is also to lose all hope of seeing friends and loved ones again who have pre-deceased you. For many Christians accepting evolution (as a religion) ends all meaning in their lives. Christianity is the over-riding principle around which their lives are organized.
Instead I think it is better to say we understand the evidence for evolution and accept the conclusions that the evidence leads us to. Just like detectives look at evidence and let it lead to a conclusion about whodunit.
http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2007/05/the_kasichhamkrauss_instatrans.php
discussing Ken Ham's appearance on the Bill O'Reilly show. Ken Ham was there as a result of the grand opening of his new creation "museum" in Kentucky, I wrote the following about my experiences in my local church with subject of evolution and creationism:
I was raised as an Evangelical Christian. I distinctly remember the first time I saw a book with the word "Evolution" in the title. I literally thought it would burn my hand if I touched it. But I did finally touch it and then read it. I was shocked to find it to be a calm and reasonable explanation of evolution. I had expected it to be dripping with sarcasm and slander regarding religion. There was none. The only place I found sarcasm, emotion-laden arguments and deliberated shading of the truth were in the Creationists books I had purchased at the Institute of Creation Research in Santee, California. (One of those books was by Ken Ham who at the time worked there. By the way, why was he forced to leave and go across the country to Kentucky? What did he believe that Duane Gish and Henry Morris did not?) Because the "christian" books were so angry and nasty in their tone, so very un-Christian, I very slowly began to change my world view. If one attacks and belittles those Christians who ask questions, one cuts off all chance for one's arguments to have the desired impact. At least that would have been the case for me.
The beginning of my personal enlightenment had to do with the realization about the true age of the universe. I realized that if the ICR’s god and the Ken Ham’s god were the god Christians were worshipping then that god was a liar or a deceiver to leave so much evidence on earth and in the heavens that the universe was billions of years old. My Christian friends said that god just made the universe appear to be old. He created starlight in transit to look old. The six million annual varves at the Green River deposits in Utah did not represent 6 million years, they just appeared to because god made them that way to test our faith.
A few years later, creation and evolution became a hot topic in our town as we elected a creationist school board and their beliefs and actions were making national headlines (Vista Unified School District—1992). Because I was a local science teacher and Sunday School teacher, my minister gave me the pulpit for four Sunday evening services in a row. At the time it was a very high interest topic, hundreds attended during those evenings. The vast majority of attendees listened and responded well to the evidence for the ancient age of the earth. Most Christians are moderate. Most have no problem with the ancient age of the earth. Most are decent people who are just trying to find their way in the world.
The forth and last evening service, I brought up evidence for natural selection as the driving force for speciation on the earth. It could be thought of as God’s driving force of creation set woven into the fabric of our universe. Only we see it linearly so it appears cause and effect. God, however, is above time--in all places at all times. His very being sustains the universe. His creative energy is natural selection. This explanation almost worked. I had them with me. But then I brought in the word “evolution.” That word has been so demonized by ministers (who I have heard) that the very word stopped the progress I was making with the congregation. (In our school district the science teachers call it the “E” word, because it dare not be fully enunciated in class.) That evening ended badly.
Eventually I left the church. It became even more fundamentalist. Fiery fundamentalist sermons get emotions flowing. The more emotions, the more people think they have heard a great sermon and the looser they are with their donations at collection plate passing time. A minister only stays as minister as long as he keeps the funds coming in. Eventually the minister who invited me to speak was asked to leave. He was not fiery enough besides his teenage daughter became pregnant out of wedlock. Scandal of scandals! That was it for him. There is no tenure or job security for a minister at an
Evangelical church.
Given the chance, I still think I might be able to win my former congregation and other Evangelicals over to a more evidence based view of the world if I could just show them that Ken Ham’s and ICR’s views lead to a little god (only ruling a tiny 6 thousand light year wide universe) who has left the world full of his deceptions. A deceptive being who lies describes not god but Satan. Maybe if I had had 6 evening services, who knows?
In order to begin to change minds one has to start slowly and always be respectful. Insults end discussions and close minds. Before my first Evolution book, I simply turned off and tuned out when I heard a teacher or professor talk about evolution. Because I knew better I heard nothing. I only thought about how wrong evolution was and how silly and sad were those who did not know it. Only because that first book on evolution was so careful to be objective and gentle was I able to make a transition from the very zealous faith of my mother to a more reasoned view of the world and religion. I also was lucky enough to talk with Eugenie Scott who was also very kind and never insulting. Had I started with Vincent Sarich , “we won, you lost, that settles it,” I am not sure I ever would have gotten passed his insults and anger to the meat of his arguments.
To Hoary Puccoon, those Six Commandments of Science were wonderful. I have also plan to post them to my personal blog with links back. The contrast between the unethical behavior and words of the “christians” espousing “Young Earth” philosophy compared to those who told about evolution pushed me away from the ideas of the creationists. Christians are supposed to be ethical.
Here are Hoary Puccoon's Six Commandments of Science with his commentary:
The whole is-there-a-god thing bores me. But why doesn't anyone emphasize how ethical science is-- and how unethical the creationists look to scientists?
The Six (and counting) Commandments of Science
(1)Thou shalt not lie. Fudging data is a mortal sin, enough to terminate one's career.
(2)Honor thy fathers. You must give credit to the previously-published work of other scientists.
(3)Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor. Misrepresenting another scientist's work merits public exposure and condemnation. (The creationists never understand just how immoral their quote-mining seems to scientists.)
(4)Love thy neighbor. Ad hominem arguments are not acceptable in scientific discourse.
(5)By their works ye shall know them. If Linus Pauling is a legend and Watson and Crick are complete unknowns, whose model of DNA is accepted? W&C's-- because theirs is right and Pauling's was wrong.
(6)Let your yeas be yeas, and your nays, nays. Scientists must define their variables explicitly, and not fudge and say, 'oh, I really meant something else' if their hypothesis is disproven. (This is actually why theism versus atheism doesn't much matter in practicing science. God, whether he/she/it exists or not, is too fuzzy a variable to produce clear results.)
This could probably be worked up to ten commandments, but the point is, scientists, whether theists or atheists, do have strict rules of ethics-- which the creationists constantly violate. This point needs to be hammered into the public discourse. The creationists aren't just getting a few dry facts wrong-- they are undermining the entire ethical basis of science. Letting the fundies get away with claiming they represent morality is, in my opinion, morally wrong.
By the way no one believes in Evolution. The Little God Creationists use this framing to show their followers that evolution is a religion. The goal is to convince the faithful that scientist just want to convert them. This is very frightening to the faithful. To convert is to lose all hope of an afterlife. It is also to lose all hope of seeing friends and loved ones again who have pre-deceased you. For many Christians accepting evolution (as a religion) ends all meaning in their lives. Christianity is the over-riding principle around which their lives are organized.
Instead I think it is better to say we understand the evidence for evolution and accept the conclusions that the evidence leads us to. Just like detectives look at evidence and let it lead to a conclusion about whodunit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
