Creationists and Some AGW Skeptics

I am a scientist and I value skepticism. I am always of the opinion that things should be questioned. It's how science works. But skepticism in order to avoid arriving at a reasonable conclusion can cause harm. Especially when the skepticism is apparently there simply to forestall inconvenient action that should prudently be taken.

I am, however, not a climate scientist. My doctorate is in geology with years spent as a research chemist. I am, however, not a trained climatologist nor do I fully grasp every detail of the climatological basis of anthropogenic global climate change ("man made global warming", or AGW). But I am aware enough of the data and have read extensively in the area. I am rather of the opinion that the apparent majority of climate scientists who feel AGW is real passes the "sniff test" in terms of the science. The fundamentals seem relatively solid, even if there may some subtle details that must be addressed and further investigated.

I feel that, since science never has 100% perfect knowledge, that it is rational to take action on the most likely scenarios based on the data. Right now those data seem to indicate that we should start making some serious changes and fast.

But not everyone sees it that way. I'm involved in some on-line discussions mostly with other "interested amateurs" and I've notice something. The debate style that some of these skeptics (and some bloggers on the AGW skeptic side) take looks a lot like the debate tactics I saw Creationists use when I read Creationist critiques of evolution.

So much so that I made this handy little table which I may add to as time goes on. But I wanted to put it out there now.

The table is divided into a column for Argument (the "gambit" played against the standard science) and the next two columns give examples of how this is applied by some Creationists and how it is applied by some AGW Sketpics.

I have attempted to provide links (which were live at the time of this writing) and the verbiage used in those links.

Argument	Creationist	AGW Skeptic
…..is dead!	Evolution is Dead	Global Warming is Dead
….is a scam/fraud	Evolution Fraud	Global Warming Scam
....legitimate scientists disagree with the dominant hypothesis	Institute of Creation Research RATE Group	Petition Project
I don't believe it, I don't want to pay for it!	"Like it or not, you pay for faith in evolution" (WND Article)	Global Warming Tax
The science isn't settled!
…need more/better proof	Transitional fossils	Better models

 

Is It True?

You’ve received e-mails from friends and family that make you wonder if it’s really true! Sometimes these e-mails relate to monstrous atrocities being planned by the government or maybe the heart-warming treacle of a light bit of entertainment couched as a “true story”!

Either way it’s important to know, when you first start to get into the e-mail what the likelihood is that it’s true!

Behold the E-Mail Veracity Equation! (Thanks in large part to a friend (Dr. W.) for the core of the equation.)

P_t is the probability that the e-mail contains a true story

N_f = number of times it has been forwarded (just count the number of forwards, not the number of people to whom it has been forwarded)

F = Font size (points)

C = 1 if it is any font other than “comic sans seriff”, 2 if it is comic sans seriff

Now it’s a quick matter of figuring out what the likelihood is that the e-mail you are investing your time and heart into is actually true!

Religious Acceptance Function

Any given religion becomes more accepted the older it gets. I propose a model for this called the Religious Acceptance Function (Ra) which is a function of time.

Ideally the longer a religious “meme” has been around the more “accepted” it is. Probably because as time goes on there are fewer people around to tell the details about how or why the original “religion” was founded. In addition as an idea exists in a community for a length of time the more “comfortable” it feels.

Ra = Acceptance rate of a given religion as a function of time

k = “religiosity” of population (how prone are they to accepting a religious proposition)

O = “Outlandishness of claims” (barrier to acceptance of a religious claim)

In this model the acceptance rate is the relative portion of a given population exposed to given religious claim (a “new religion”) that accepts the religion as either acceptable or one they practice.

K is defined as the “religiosity” factor. However religious population is will help define how effective a new religion will take hold and become accepted. If the population is largely irreligious no new religion will be readily accepted.

O is the “outlandishness” factor which is, simply put, how outlandish a religious claim is and represents a barrier to acceptance and adoption of the new religion. As O is decreased adoption and acceptance is hastened.

Ultimately the point at which a religious concept is accepted is the "propensity level" or the baseline level for that that society to accept any given religion.

The following figure is a rough example of this in action.

AP Chuck (Advanced Placement Chuck Norris)

I think the whole Chuck Norris thing needs to be "upped" a bit. I mean right now we are dealing with the boring day-to-day. Why not make it a bit more hardcore and exciting from a less obvious standpoint?

Here are my suggestions for AP Chuck

(I assume some of these are already out there).

Chuck Norris can grossly violate the assumption of normality and still get an accurate t-test.

Chuck Norris can cause a reaction to be spontaneous whose Gibbs Free Energy is positive.

(Alternately: Gibb's Free Energy is a function of enthalpy and entropy and can be positive or negative. Chuck's Free Energy is always negative.)

Chuck Norris is capable of forcing Cr and Cu to give back those 4s electrons and man up like all the other neighboring transition metals.

When symmetry is broken in physics, Murray Gell-Mann dares not blame Chuck. Even though he knows who broke it.

Chuck Norris does all his math in base-2, but instead of 1 and 0 he prefers "right" and "left".