Truth and the Devil

An article in today’s New York Times highlights the potential damages of global climate change for third world countries. Despite the fact that the industrialized nations of the US and Europe are the producers of most of the world’s greenhouse gases, it is the third world countries that might be the least equipped to deal with the problem.

Two-thirds of the atmospheric buildup of carbon dioxide, a heat-trapping greenhouse gas that can persist in the air for centuries, has come in nearly equal proportions from the United States and Western European countries. Those and other wealthy nations are investing in windmill-powered plants that turn seawater to drinking water, in flood barriers and floatable homes, and in grains and soybeans genetically altered to flourish even in a drought.

Phil Plait links to two beautiful astronomical animations.

The first is a high-res animation of Comet McNaught, specifically it’s spectacular tail.

The other is an animation of the Moon passing in front of the sun as the sun rotates. Very cool.

STEREO-B caught what astronomers call a transit — the passing of one celestial body in front of another — but in this case it’s OK to call it what it is: a solar eclipse, when the Moon passes in front of the Sun.

I thought I’d post a quick follow-up on my post about The Great Global Warming Swindle. I linked to some info about the ‘documentary’ misleading its interviewees, as well as producing misleading graphs. Here’s more:

Stoat writes a post summing up some of these problems here.

The Independent has a summary of these errors as well.

A reader at Stoat noticed that the film changed its graphs on their recent rebroadcast of the program.

Stoat also shows us why the relationship between CO₂ and temperature isn’t as straightforward as the film would have you believe.

PZ Myers has come up with a brilliant analogy for evolution skeptics and promoters of intelligent design.

My kitchen sink has a problem. Something has broken inside th Moen faucet, so that the handle is loose and only marginall effective. I’m thinking I should run down to the hardware store and get new faucet assembly, and get under the sink with a pipe wrench. I shouldn’t be too difficult

There was a recent ‘documentary’ shown in the UK calling Global Warming a hoax. See the link for a few clips. I could barely get through the first one it was so sensational and filled with bullshit.

Global warming denial is beginning to be quite insulting. Questioning scientific conclusions among your colleagues through a process of peer-review is one thing, attempting to insinuate that the vast majority of scientists the entire world over are greedy, arrogant, lazy, incompetent fools simply trying to scare the population of the world, is another. Especially when the deniers/skeptics are saying these things by perpetuating lies and myths through the media, rather than through science. It’s quite despicable.

Closely related to my recent post about the ethics of global warming, is a post at Real Climate using the analogy of the TV shows CSI and Cold Case to help explain how climate science is done. Recent studies (of the past 30 years or so) are like looking at a fresh crime scene with blood still on the walls. While older climate studies (thousands of years ago) involve looking at more circumstantial evidence such as ice cores, ocean sediments,etc. They also address some claims from climate change deniers:

Global Warming denial among some conservatives has developed into a conversation with some of the most perverted ethics I can imagine. In an attempt to get out of taking any sort of responsibility for the health of the Earth as a whole, these conservatives have first denied that global warming exists, then denied that it was man-made (i.e. part of a natural cycle), and now are simply denying that we need to actually do anything about it.

Just watched Deepak Chopra on the Colbert Report. I really can’t understand how the man can be so popular. He said very little of substance, and a little bit about the “you” being the user of your nervous system, and how everything that exists is an illusion created by consciousness. What boggles my mind is how he can speak with such confidence about utter nonsense, and then that he can be taken seriously by anyone.

Just watched Francis Collins on the Colbert Report from Thursday, and this type of debate makes me want to side (if I were to choose sides) with PZ Myers in the ongoing atheist debates. Francis Collins is one of those scientists attempting to reconcile religious belief with science and I think he’s undermining both in the process. His explanation of evolution as a way of God giving “upgrades” is neither theologically coherent, nor scientifically valid.

For some occasions, Myers might be right that theistic evolutionists can actually hurt the teaching of science. A moderate, middle-of-the-road position is not always the correct one. I’ll try to find a link to the video later.

As the debate between science and religion rages on, I am simultaneously inspired and dejected at the ramifications of it and how it affects those on the sidelines. I am optimistic regarding how much publicity atheists like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris are getting in the mainstream media, and that many ridiculous religious claims are being examined out in the open. Unfortunately, despite the exposure of atheistic ideas to the theistic world, many of the same misrepresentations of atheists remain.

I believe the logical arguments proposed by secular thinkers against belief in gods or religion actually resonate with a large portion of people, however, the prospect of a world without religion is also frightening for many.