Jeff and I have had a long-standing disagreement regarding science and the scientific community, and it's one of those areas where we are polar opposites. I believe firmly in Creation. No doubts, no questions, no change in my theory next year or the year after. I also believe that most scientists are doo-doo heads who would lie to you as soon as look at you. Jeff, at last discussion believed in Evolution because there's proof and scientific records and if Darwin said it, it must be true. Whatever. You may have come from monkeys, but not me, sir.
The problem I have with scientific theory is they're just that: theories. It's one thing to know something; to have hammered-out, undeniable proof that is black and white. It's another to make it up as you go along, changing your theories willy-nilly and claiming it's all true and verifiable (at least til you change your mind). Don't tell me that life came from a one-celled amoeba if you can't tell me where the amoeba came from. Don't tell me we're experiencing global warming when I've frozen my arse off the last 2 summers and could barely grow tomatoes this year. You either KNOW something or you don't, but don't lie to me. Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining, people.
Enter Climategate.
Finally the truth is coming out and boy, is it ugly. If you have been following the story, you'll have heard the basic facts. A bunch of emails, blah blah blah, hacked from files, blah blah blah, mad scientists. It wouldn't be such an outrageous story if not for the content of the emails. What appears to be going on is a bunch of snotty, stuck-up, smarter-than-you scientists have spent a decade falsifying information and strong-arming anyone who disagreed with their theories. They've been altering information to (ahem) prove their point that the Earth is, indeed, warming. And if you voice opposition to their theory, they exclude you from the group, call your boss, humiliate you publicly. Go figure. More people on government payrolls lying to us.
I have a theory too, you know. I told Jeff many years ago that it was in scientists best interests to lie. He thought I was joking. They lie to protect their jobs, their grants, their reputations, their theories. If you set out to prove global warming with a nice, cushy grant you received from the government and then suddenly all your theories are BS and amount to a hill of beans, what do you think happens to the funding? Poof. Gone. You just put yourself out of business, friend. So this group from the Climate Research Unit in Britain has spent the past few years altering information, lying to the public, and generally blowing smoke up our collective bums. Honestly, it doesn't surprise me. I mean, come on folks. Look outside. It's cold. We only went swimming 3 times this past summer. Do you know why? It was COLD. It's not rocket science!
And how do I feel about this leak? Freed. My theory that scientists lie to protect their keisters has been proven accurate. My theory that we've been fed lies in order to protect jobs and funding rings true. So now global warming has fallen apart, what's next? Evolution maybe?
One can only hope.
5 comments:
Andrea- I've been where Jeff is and have only one comment for him.
Darwinians (and most science by default) love to explain how we just crawled out of the muck and became monkey wannabees... but that's as far back as they can go.
When I actually started THINKING about evolution, it dawned on me that I was making a bigger leap of faith in believeing the 'stuff to go bang' had always been there than in believeing God created it.
The first three words of the Bible prove that: "In the beginning..." There was nothing, zilch, nada. It wasn't 'always' there: not till God spoke it.
He was here first, will be last. I'll pray for your man that God will open his eyes and create a house undivided.
Bless God, God bless.
Shy III
I'm an environmental engineer. I do science. I'm also president of my church council. I have deep faith. I have never found science and religion to be incompatible or contradictory. The Bible was written by humans to explain to other humans how they understood things to have happened (arguably by divine revelation) in the way their people found it easiest to understand things. But God is so big a concept, that I don't believe we can completely grasp it through literal readings of a repeatedly translated text written millenia ago. The Bible is an excellent place to start in our understanding and improving connection with God, but God's works are not limited in my mind to the words of the humans who wrote the Bible. While they may have explained it as a 7-day process, I don't assume God's "day" in the beginning couldn't have been millenia long. I fully believe it is possible that what scientists have observed in the paleontological records is another way of explaining the truth of what God did to create the world. Science and religion are merely two ways of describing the truth of what is around us.
I also don't believe scientists are all out there to lie to us. There are a great many scientists of great integrity who fight tooth and nail against releasing false data. Granted, with their smaller budgets they tend to get less publicity and thus we don't hear about it. When I was in college in the early 90s there was lots of concern about the ozone hole down south and the global warming fad had just started. Based on the data *I* was seeing I never bought it. There have been, consistently, a wide variety of scientists who have refused to sign on to the theory based on their interpretation of the data, but they disappear from view because no one in the media is willing to talk to them, or they lose grants and thus have no research to publish. While there are unscrupulous scientists, I place much more blame on gov or corporate entities looking to further their own agendas and the media for allowing such info to be suppressed. I will allow we are in a period of climate change, but I am unconvinced it is man-made. Al Gore drives me nuts. But it's hard to argue with him since there's a variety of OTHER reasons the actions he advocates (if doesn't follow) would be good for society - they're the same things environmentalists have been pushing since the 70s.
I've read every IPCC report that's been released. In the first (or second) one the dataset they use doesn't produce enough of an increase in world temperatures. In all successive reports, it was "updated" (read: falsified) to meet the desired results.
As Stacy noted, it comes down to money, and on a global scale. If there is no "boogie man", there is no reason to increase taxes - and control. The upcoming Copenhagen meeting on global warming has one real goal - to get the First World to pay reparations to the Third World. This is not conjecture, it is spelled out in their own words.
Will this stop Cap and Trade and the rest of this madness? Probably not. Pelosi and Reed will arm twist and get the votes they need. If not them, someone else. This email scandal may act as a speed-bump, but they'll eventually get their pound of flesh for a ton of CO2.
I never trust the feds.
Happy Thanksgiving Andrea and family
I used to believe in the global warming... but I watched shows on the green channel, I dont know what the real name is, they have a group of people that get together and "discuss" topics, the one guy said that global warming is made up because if you look at the history of the climates the weather patterns change every 100 years. and some of the icecaps melted before. Its been a while, I can't remember everything said. I remember a long time ago someone told me that with the tilting of the earth and a bunch of other words I dont remember that Florida would have our weather and we would have kansas' Dont know the validity to that.... I just know that in OHIO july doesn't mean 100 degrees and december doesnt mean snow.... we can have all seasons in one week. and even though I dont agree with some christianity, I dont believe in evolution as in we were monkeys in the past... but There are some people that are not as smart as monkeys now.
Post a Comment