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".

Alter.Nost

Introducing a new alternative to daily horoscopes! "Alter.Nost" or "Alternate Nostradamus", your one-stop shop for alternate prognostication! (aka "Fognostication" or "Flognostication" depending on your sign).

The only think you need to do is determine your "sign". But once you've done that, you are ready to go!

Today's Alt.Nost for the Sign of the Underemployed:

Stay out of the narrow aisles today.

Today's Alt.Nost for the Sign of the Overlysensitized:

Your gravitational field is far too strong today and you are attracting idiots.

Today's Alt.Nost for the Sign of the Poorly Placed Electrical Outlet:

You're going out dressed like that? Well....Ok.

Healthcare and Convictions

I trust that those who have been campaigning so vociferously against the "public option" in healthcare reform will follow through and refuse to use Medicare, Medicaid or VA healthcare should the time come when they desperately need care but can't afford it (owing to limited income as retirees etc.)

I mean it would be grossly unfair to force someone to take government-directed healthcare when they expended so much effort telling us how horrible such a concept would be.

Seems like Americans are long on "fiscal responsibility" except when it comes to healthcare where we pay more, per capita, for healthcare than just about any OECD country yet don't live as long as countries where people pay less. And our healthcare system was ranked #37 in 2000 by the W.H.O.

Besides, it's not like healthcare is a normal market good. I don't seem to see too many folks suffering from aggressive life-threatening illnesses taking the time to do "comparison shopping".

Most Americans probably can't tell you how an MRI works, let alone assess if they need an MRI done. Good luck with "shopping around".

But I am assuming the good folks who have, yet again, kept us from moving forward into the same area that almost every other developed nation has in terms of healthcare, are going to follow through on their convictions. And, when they retire and are living on a fixed income, they will dutifully turn down Medicare and go try to get coverage at a private health insurance company.

Of course that will be easy enough so long as they don't have any pre-existing conditions, or ever been to a doctor for any reason in their life, for that matter! The insurance companies will welcome them with open arms.

Oh yeah, and they'll pay a lot for the insurance too. But that's the free market, isn't it?

Watchmen...wtf?

Well, I endured watching "Watchmen" this week. I hope I am not offending but it only serves to reinforce my dislike of the recent trend of movies based on graphic novels.

I liked the effects in the movie and I even smiled at the "alternate history" where Nixon is a 5 term president fighting the Russkies.

But omg the plot was like a frankensteinian grafting of the brains of a savvy observer of human nature and a 25 year old geek-virgin who still lives in his parents' basement. It lurched sickeningly between the clever and the bizarrely naïve. Drooling as it went from politically clever concepts to stupid teen dreams all taking place in inane costumes replete with capes and headgear.

The smartest man in the world??? Oh that about killed me right there.

"Dr. Manhattan"? Really?

And "Rohrschach". Why not just call him "Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory" and have his alter ego named "Meyers Briggs"? (Although I did like the shifting face mask and the possibility of some underlying symbolism of his character reflecting society on some larger scale...when of course I wasn't distracted by Harvey Birdman having "relations" with Silk Specter II in an aerodynamically impossible craft high above the city.)

And the fact the movie went on for like 15 hours indicates that someone just KNEW they wouldn't be able to milk this for a sequel so they tried to cram it all into one movie. Blowing their lot all in one shot...not unlike the airship scene.

My brain hurts and not in a good way now.