1751. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #45763 by steve99 on May 29, 2007 at 6:38 am

Steve, you were expecting something different?

I looked up the reviews on Amazon.

"This book is a more than useful contribution to the `Dawkins Debate'"

That can only have been written by someone who has never read TGD, or who thinks the following sort of argument is "useful":

Dawkins: "The argument of fine tuning is flawed because of the following reasons....."

Robertson: "God must exist because of fine tuning"

and so on, ad nauseam...

1752. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #45759 by steve99 on May 29, 2007 at 6:23 am

Oh dear. I went to the Free Church website, and started to read. I wish I hadn't. It is the most appalling and unoriginal drivel. It is arguing back against Dawkins using precisely the same arguments that Dawkins attempts to demolish. That is not exactly the way to convince anyone! Argument from design. Argument from fine tuning. The multiverse argument is 'science fiction' with no evidence, whereas 'God did it' is fine. Nothing but a series of arguments from incredulity.

It is also very poorly written. It reads like a student's rant.

1753. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #45756 by steve99 on May 29, 2007 at 6:03 am

I had not come across David Robertson before. Now I look I see pretty good reviews of his book. But I am not hopeful myself. I went back and read his open letter to Dawkins. It typifies so much argument I see from the religious, in that it refuses to get to the point, and instead the writer is far off in the distance, battling with some carefully constructed straw men. I find it hugely frustrating to read such articles, or watch debates. It is almost as if the writer is not entirely sure what it means to debate; how the process of argument and counter-argument work.

Whether the 'Dawkins Letters' are like that as well, I don't know. But this little gem from the open letter does not give me hope for their quality:

You want to raise the consciousness of such people to the extent that they can realise that they can get out. Do you really think that people are that stupid? Do most people not already know that is perfectly possible to leave a religion and not suffer any significant social consequences – at least in non-Islamic countries?

The pretty amazing response to Dawkins' book in the USA, where many did indeed have their conciousness raised so they could 'get out', and they were 'stupid' enough (of course it was more oppression than stupidity) to not realise they could abandon religion, clearly demolishes the first point. And the final sentence sort of self-destructs thanks to the final clause.

Just this section alone is a combination of just getting things wrong, followed by shooting yourself in the foot.

1754. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #45715 by steve99 on May 29, 2007 at 4:17 am

A universe determined to pursue any sort of 'direction' may as well have 'something in mind'.

Over time all evolution is really doing is producing an increasingly varied range of organisms. It isn't planning to go anywhere or produce anything. It is just that as evolution randomly explores the 'parameter space' of life, you will get some organisms that seem more complex and are more intelligent. This is no more planned than an ink drop spreading out ('exploring') in a glass of water.

but to suggest that we, personal, purposefull, sentient beings are a product of an impersonal blind purposeless system is probably the ultimate oxymoron.

This shows the most profound lack of understanding of much that science has taught us over the last century and a half. Darwin answered that question simply and beautifully.

1755. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #45705 by steve99 on May 29, 2007 at 3:12 am

pewkatchoo: What I was concerned about was the excessiveness of the comment. One isn't going to get anywhere by calling Robert Winston, ex-president of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, Fellow of the Academy of Medical Sciences (FMedSci), the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (FRCOG), and of the Royal College of Physicians of London (FRCP), and is an Honorary Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons (FRCS Edin), Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons (FRCPS Glasg), and the Instititute of Biology (FIBiol), a "so-called 'scientist'" or "a dangerously deluded, confused old man".

Apart from being wrong, it is going to be counter-productive. It ranks along with those who try and dismiss Dawkins as "a raging fundamentalist".

I am certainly not saying that Winston is right - just that there are better ways to make the case.

1756. Al Gore on Reason

Comment #45668 by steve99 on May 28, 2007 at 9:33 pm

ratio:

I don't much care about the IPCC one way or another. I have no particular opinion on the recent Stern report on climate change. I am not particularly concerned about what they think is the consensus. I try and get the 'message' directly from reports of scientists who work on climate change.

If you pick any field at all, from climate change to research into the breeding habits of fleas, you will get reports from skeptical outsiders who feel that have been unfairly treated.... "I was not allowed to present my report"... "My papers were unfairly rejected"... it is all the same.

Combine_Dave: I am glad this has ended amicably. I apologise if I was somewhat harsh in the discussion. I am interested in Hitchen's opinion because he always seems to have a different angle on things from everyone else. For example, I found his opinions on Mother Theresa both shocking and important. He may be wrong about some things, but he always comes up with good arguments.

1757. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #45666 by steve99 on May 28, 2007 at 9:19 pm

It's hard to believe that some so called "scientists" still believe in a space merlin that created the world. Stupid and dangerous delusions from a confused old man.

You are going way over the top here. Lord Winston is a very respected scientist and certainly not a "confused old man". If you listened to the debate you should have picked up that he probably isn't really a believer of the kind that Dawkins is against. What Robert Winston is almost certainly concerned about is the offense he thinks others will feel. I understand your sentiments, but I think it would be wise to do a bit of research before you post.

1758. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #45626 by steve99 on May 28, 2007 at 2:49 pm

The reply by NJS is much better.

But not in the UK (where this debate was held). Here we have a soft and very moderate Chritianity, where most people would think that any mention of Hell would be in bad taste.

1759. Al Gore on Reason

Comment #45620 by steve99 on May 28, 2007 at 1:52 pm

Your quotations from the book certainly look very nice. I'll have to grab a copy ;-)

I suspect you may disappointed... it is likely to be substantially about politics, where 'reason' is probably not used in the way we would like! I believe he is generally in favour of reason, but his past record of compromise in this area is not a good sign.

Me - I am going to order Hitchens' book. I like his blunt and aggressive style (as you can probably guess!)

1760. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #45619 by steve99 on May 28, 2007 at 1:48 pm

I believe a valid reply to "your stance is insulting and offensive" is "You believe I will burn in hell forever - whats more offensive than that?"

I think in this case that response would not be fair. I don't believe Winston believes that.

1761. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #45593 by steve99 on May 28, 2007 at 11:46 am

It wasn't a very satisfactory debate at all - so short nothing of substance could really be said. The only message that I got from it was that Lord Winston believes it could cause a lot of offense to call so many believers deluded. I see his point, but I think using the term 'delusion' is really rather clever. It is really nowhere near as offensive at it sounds. Wikipedia defines 'delusion' as "a fixed false belief and is used in everyday language to describe a belief that is either false, fanciful or derived from deception." In the context, it is hard to think of a more accurate word. The "derived from deception" part is particularly appropriate, as it indicates the role of churches and religious leaders.

Anyway, I don't think there is anything wrong with being a little offensive. "The God Delusion" is a useful meme. I don't think "I think you might be a bit wrong about God" would have sold quite so well.

1762. Al Gore on Reason

Comment #45591 by steve99 on May 28, 2007 at 11:25 am

Bonzai: Thank you.

1763. Al Gore on Reason

Comment #45587 by steve99 on May 28, 2007 at 10:55 am

Perhaps you can elaborate and comment on these issues especially in the context of climatology when you have the time. Thanks.

Just a brief comment - you are right about the issues involved. One thing that matters is that weather is not the same as climate. The same issues are involved - non-linearity and the growth of errors, but on different scales. It is often said that it should be impossible predict climate at all because we can't accurately predict the weather more than a few days ahead. (I am not saying that pewkatchoo thinks this, but many do). A quick response to that is that we may not know if it will rain in a week, but we know it will be colder at Christmas! Weather averages out, leaving factors that can be used to simulate climate on a scale of at least decades. The reason why weather averages out is because factors limit the level of change (such as the seasonal variations in solar radiation, and the slow heat aborption and release of the oceans). On other planets, things are different - Mars, for example, can have extreme weather - vast long-lived storms for example, as such factors don't act to dampen things down.

Actually, current climate models (as I understand them) aren't that much stripped down versions of reality. Due to the growth in computing power, they operate on very fine scales.

Another thing that seems almost impossible, but is commonplace in science is to be able to get pretty good predictions from chaotic models. The secret is averaging and sampling right. Just like a weak signal can be cleaned up well from background noise.

Using statistical ensembles (basically tweaking start parameters and running the model many, many times) we don't just get an idea of the range of predictions, we also get a good idea of how accurate the predictions are likely to be. We know that if the model is run with a very slight change in an initial parameter (say, solar radiation) and that results in a major change in temperature, that we have an area that is problematic, and we will need to run many, many more simulations over that small parameter range to get any accurancy.

1764. It came like yesterday

Comment #45583 by steve99 on May 28, 2007 at 10:10 am

This is a happy thread I've walked on to...

Let me try and cheer it up a bit!

There is very little we could do to wipe even ourselves out. There have been mass extinctions in the past, but the species that have survived have been those that can survive almost anywhere on the planet. That includes us. Even if we develop some nasty disease, and all but a few thousand (perhaps in some isolated area) survive, that would only set back the development of mankind for a few millenia. On a timescale of millions of years, you would hardly notice.

As for the belief that we aren't special and can't do more than supervolcanoes and asteroids. Well, I'll start with the second point first. Sure - we can't (yet) mess things up that quickly (a matter of a few minutes or days), but that does not mean we can't have a major influence on the planet. We certainly can't wipe out most life, but most of us live in finely balanced enviromnents. Just a little shift in the environment would be disastrous.

As for us not being special. Of course we are! The universe revolves around us, but if you consider complexity and intelligence significant then we are possibly one of the most interesting things in this cosmos. For all we know, we could be the only technological culture. This should be a major inspiration to people, I am stunned by the defeatist 'we are only going to kill ourselves, and we are not worth it' attitudes I hear. We are probably not going to be around for millions of years, at least not in the form we are now. Almost certainly technology and genetic engineering will change us dramatically. What is likely is that millions, even billions of years in the future our decendants will be around, in some form or another, and they will remember us. I like the comment of Martin Rees reacting to discussions of how humans would survive the end of the sun in 6-7 billion years - he said that it was silly to talk about 'humans' - there will be something around then, but it will be a different from us as we are from bacteria.

Anyway, in decades rather than centuries we will have colonies off-world, almost certainly taking Earth-life with us. That will become one of the most important developments ever in the history of life, because after that, even the colonisation of the stars is relatively easy (just scoop out an asteroid, terraform it, wait a few centuries until it feels like home, then throw in a nuclear or fusion power generator, and slingshot it out of the solar system. The colonists won't care about a journey of centuries - why would they - from their point of view they are staying at home).

1765. Al Gore on Reason

Comment #45576 by steve99 on May 28, 2007 at 9:22 am

You have been unable to provide any actual examples of Gore actually supporting science or not believing that God created man and controls evolution.

Robert Maynard already posted evidence. This is what Gore says in his new book:

Faith in the power of reason—the belief that free citizens can govern themselves wisely and fairly by resorting to logical debate on the basis of the best evidence available, instead of raw power—remains the central premise of American democracy.

He also says:

We must stop tolerating the rejection and distortion of science. We must insist on an end to the cynical use of pseudo-studies known to be false for the purpose of intentionally clouding the public's ability to discern the truth. Americans in both parties should insist on the re-establishment of respect for the rule of reason.

Sounds like supporting science to me.

And as for Gore's views on religion....

Here is a quote from Al Gore on Larry King Live, years ago:

I think that violence has that capacity because of our evolutionary heritage, because of the laws of nature – tooth and fang.

He may be deluded enough to believe that God 'pressed the button' to start evolution going, but no creationist or serious IDer would talk about 'evolutionary heritage'.

He was actually cricised for that statement by some Cristians for sounding too much in support of Darwinism!

So, it is clear. He is not a creationist.

However, I can see his problem. Say nothing about evolution and put up a single picture of Adam & Eve as a metaphor, and he gets ranted at as 'a creationist' and 'anti-science'. Express his actual support for evolutionary ideas and he gets ranted at by creationist Christians (a significant proportion of his potential electorate).

Dawkin is a supporter of reason, but it does not logically follow that all Dawkin's favours are rational.

My impression that you are, intentionally or not, just being selective, and calling him irrational when he disagrees with you.

As for your posting. I merely checked the main forum itself, not the .net website to test my theory that you were a troll blown to defend Gore.

Defending some (by no means all) of Gore's views does not make someone a troll. Your theory has now been disproved.

1766. Al Gore on Reason

Comment #45569 by steve99 on May 28, 2007 at 8:45 am

One follow up. Why is Mars also going through a global warming process? Is it connected with Earths?

Mars has its own interesting climate changes. But they are nothing much to do with Earth's. It experiences small changes due to solar variation (as does Earth), but most of the changes (like Earths) are due to changes in orbit shape and inclination of spin axis, or the effects of global dust storms - such dust storms tend to darken the surface so it traps more heat, creating more winds, and more dust storms and so on. There have been some recent dramatic changes on Mars, like the shrinkage of the southern ice cap, but that appears to be just a local phenomenon. Mars can experience quite dramatic changes pretty quickly as it does not have the moderating effects of a thick atmosphere and oceans.

How do we know that the rate of change is too fast? What is that measured against? Historical data? Could that be wrong? After all, climate records don't go back that far do they?

Direct temperature and CO2 measurements don't go back that far, but indirect ones go back a very long way. These are pretty solid (things like oxygen isotope ratios in ice cores, CO2 in ice cores etc.). We have estimates of these going back a very long way.

Also, we know the timescales of things that influence climate change - solar cycles, orbit shape changes, spin axis changes etc.

1767. Al Gore on Reason

Comment #45540 by steve99 on May 28, 2007 at 5:09 am

Is there absolutely no way that current climate change could be down to just normal or even abnormal solar/climate cycles?

If only. But no. These factors have been analysed in detail, and although they obviously contribute, they are not the major factor now. For one thing, the rate of change is too fast.

If not. Can we realistically stop AGW? Are we not past or heading fast towards a tipping point?

I have been rearching this, and I can honestly say I have no idea. The tipping point issue is a very difficult one, as it is on the edge of current understanding. We know that tipping points can happen.

What climate change modelling predicts are only first-order effects - general warming, rainfall patterns and so on. What it doesn't deal with (at least so far, as I understand it) is dramatic changes, such as sudden change in ocean currents, or bulk methane release, things that would be major tipping points. We aren't also that sure of minor tipping points - at what point are things irreversible? Given the exponential increase in computing power, we may have some idea of this in a few years.

I have absolutely no idea if AGW can be stopped. Many climate scientists think that Gore is being far too optimistic in his presentations.

Why are the 'experts' who hold opposing views so wrong?

Hard to answer. All I can say is that they seem to have a resistance to accepting mainstream research. They seem to be to global warming what Michael Behe is to evolution - still pushing the same ideas even when shown to be wrong. Let me give an example: the idea that global warming is mainly a result of cosmic rays. The idea is that cosmic rays cause increased condensation in the atmosphere which leads to more clouds which trap heat. Sounds good. The problem is that this is just plain wrong. Sure, some clouds do trap heat, but a lot of them reflect it. There is a well-known phenomenon called global cooling which results from increased condentation in the atmosphere reflecting back solar radiation. In fact, it is more likely that cosmic rays are helping to hold back warming. But does this stop the cosmic ray theory supporters trying to keep publishing? Of course not. Many of those who hold opposing views are like this - stubborn resistance in the fact of not just counter-arguments but evidence. Still, they serve a useful purpose in helping to test current theories, just like Behe has probably done evolutionary theory a service by making people think about how the bacterial flagellum evoloved. But that does not make them right.

Do you, personally, not find the IPPC a worrying organisation?

I have no idea. I am not personally concerned with the IPPC. What concerns me is the huge consensus of scientific opinion.

My own environmental concern is the sea! Do you think that this is a priority for the future of life on earth over AGW?

It is all hugely connected. AGW has a dramatic effect on the sea through things like acidification, which is already happening.

Maybe preventing the religious nutters from blowing us all up is a more urgent, if perhaps not a scientific, problem?

I agree completely, but I don't think this matter competes with AGW research and solutions for resources.

How can science realistically address all the important issues? How do we prioritise them?

I really have no idea, although I think that the main issues are political, not scientific.

Do you really think that having Al Gore involved in this is a good idea if the end result is that he gets elected as President of the US?

Al Gore has been to climate change what Dawkins has been to atheism - a hugely important promoter of ideas. As to what he would be like as a president, I haven't got the slightest idea, although I suspect he can't be as bad as Bush.

Look - if I have seemed unreasonable and arrogant, I have not mean to. I am afraid I almost always post like this. Perhaps in the spirit of 'Darwin's Rottweiler', you could call me 'Global Warming's Chihuahua' - small, probably insignificant, buta bit nippy.

1768. Al Gore on Reason

Comment #45517 by steve99 on May 28, 2007 at 3:45 am

One follow up. Why is Mars also going through a global warming process? Is it connected with Earths?

Mars has its own interesting climate changes. But they are nothing much to do with Earth's. It experiences small changes due to solar variation (as does Earth), but most of the changes (like Earths) are due to changes in orbit shape and inclination of spin axis, or the effects of global dust storms - such dust storms tend to darken the surface so it traps more heat, creating more winds, and more dust storms and so on. There have been some recent dramatic changes on Mars, like the shrinkage of the southern ice cap, but that appears to be just a local phenomenon. Mars can experience quite dramatic changes pretty quickly as it does not have the moderating effects of a thick atomosphere and oceans.

How do we know that the rate of change is too fast? What is that measured against? Historical data? Could that be wrong? After all, climate records don't go back that far do they?

Direct temperature and CO2 measurements don't go back that far, but indirect ones go back a very long way. These are pretty solid (things like oxygen isotope ratios in ice cores, CO2 in ice cores etc.). We have estimates of these going back a very long way.

Also, we know the timescales of things that influence climate change - solar cycles, orbit shape changes, spin axis changes etc.

1769. Al Gore on Reason

Comment #45513 by steve99 on May 28, 2007 at 3:38 am

Just because Richard Dawkins supports Gore on GW doesn't mean that Gore has transformed into a champion of reason.

Actually, it does. I don't see Dawkins supporting many champions of irrationality.

I suggest you look up the logical fallacy "appeal to authority"

This is an "appeal to reason". You (wisely) mentioned Dawkins as someone reasonable. He is also a supporter of reason.

BTW: As a matter of curiosity, what other topics have you responded to here on Richard Dawkins.net?

I don't keep track. However, as recent proof I have been on here before (although why such proof should be relevant at all), check here:

http://richarddawkins.net/article,1126,The-Cyclic-Universe-A-Talk-With-Neil-Turok,edgeorg

Brian:

However a lay person would be foolish to accept a fringe position such as AGW denial, over the consensus of the rest of the relevant experts. On what basis and with what criteria would a lay person make such a jugdement?

you express this well.

As someone with coming up to 30 years in science, I can say that what so many people miss is that science DOES progress through consensus. There are occasional inviduals who move things on at a faster pace, but there is little evidence that science would not have progressed without them. Einstein follows this pattern, as others were very close to his ideas.

The thing is, that the consensus is always evolving. The reason is that consensus is boring. You don't get very far in science by publishing "Things are just the same" research. What every single research group is trying to do in that so-called "consensus" is to investigate something new, or find some challenging result. That is the way careers are made. Also, almost all advances are made by groups, not isolated geniuses - Hawking, Penrose and others for black holes, Watson, Crick and Franklin for the structure of DNA.

You do occasionally get 'lone geniuses', but often they are 'lone' simply because they want to get to the answer first, and not have to share the glory, not because they are the only person who could have come up with the idea. A recent example was Andrew Wiles, who worked on the proof of Fermat's Last Theorem in secret for 7 years.

The moral of this is that if anyone claims to be have a unique insight into an area of research you can be almost certain they are mistaken, especially if they work alone and if they have had their ideas rejected.

1770. Al Gore on Reason

Comment #45490 by steve99 on May 28, 2007 at 2:36 am

Here is a couple of reasonable questions for Steve. Can you take your computer models and translate to a physical experimental model?

Yes, of course you can. Typically these models are cross-checked against phsyical experimental models. For example, models used to simulate turbulence are checked against actually turbulence in water flow tanks and wind tunnels. This cross-checking is a vital part of the development of the models.

Can you name any other area where computer modelling has been used to predict accurately similarly complex situations occurring in the distant future

I am not sure what you mean, as the question does not make sense. If a situation occurs in the distant future, how can you be sure that the prediction is accurate without a Tardis?

However, I shall assume you mean a complex situation that requires modelling of a long time period.

As I said, exactly this kind of computer model is used in countless areas of science. It is trusted because it can predict.

One recent interesting example of how this kind of model was used very successfully was in the simulation of supernovae. Astrophysicists were puzzled about the behaviour of some supernovae. So they set up vast models, basically simulating the "climate" inside of exploding suns of a certain type and managed to find out what was happening. It turns out that supernovae can explode assymetrically, which explains the observations. This required a substantial model that ran over a huge number of time steps.

Such models are also used at very small scales, such in the prediction of molecular behaviour. In that case the 'distant future' is microseconds, as interactions take place on a timescale of picoseconds. This is now totally routine in chemistry and biochemistry, and is used for complex things like drug/enzyme interaction modelling, and protein folding.

All this is very interesting, but irrelevant. If I could not have answered this, how would it have changed anything? Would you then say 'hey, all those climate scientists would be wrong because Steve can't answer my question'?

As I explained before, your doubts are not reasonable unless you have personal expertise in this area - you are in no position to judge. All you would basically be saying is "Even though I know nothing about the subject, I have a vague feeling that the scientists are wrong". I don't think that is a respectable stance.

1771. Al Gore on Reason

Comment #45396 by steve99 on May 27, 2007 at 2:51 pm

but I have been dealing with the political disaster that is the current government for the last 10 years and for many year before that with preceeding labour governments.

Me too. I have worked with and in companies that have been extremely sensitive to economic status since the 70s.

Perhaps you don't remember 50 percent inflation, endless strikes strangling the economy, Harold Wilson going cap in hand to the IMF to help prop up the mess made by Dennis Healey. I do though, the UK was an economic basket case and the joke of Europe.

I certainly do, although, of course, inflation never reached anything like 50%. I was appalled at what Labour and the unions did in the 70s. But that has nothing to do with what has happened over the past 10 years.

When NL came to power, the UK was the 5th strongest economy in the world and was just about to become the 4th. It is now down around 17th place.

You seem to have a habit of just making things up.

This is just nonsense. The UK's economy is currently ranked 5th by GDP and 6th by PPP (purchasing power parity).

The 50% inflation and 17th place figures and your back-to-front comments about the economy imply that you really ARE living in a different world than me (certainly a different reality) so further discussion is probably pointless.

1772. Al Gore on Reason

Comment #45391 by steve99 on May 27, 2007 at 2:28 pm

This is a No Criticism of Al Gore Zone.

Have you actually read this thread?

This is from a post of mine here (others have said similar things):

I would certainly agree that he is deluded in his religious beliefs.

Still, I guess that reading the thread to get all the nuances isn't as much fun as posting a clever-sounding rant.

1773. Al Gore on Reason

Comment #45379 by steve99 on May 27, 2007 at 1:25 pm

The only people that have profited in the UK under the current gov have been the rich, lawyers, civil servants, big city bankers, estate agents and, of course, the politicians themselves.

No. This is nonsense. As you have mentioned your age, you seem to have forgotten the sheer economic awfulness of life under Conservative governments. One of the companies I work for is associated with the construction industry, which is extremely sensitive to economic mood. Things have never been better - it is the best things have been for 30 years, although the company had a hard time surviving the two recessions resulting from the economic incompetence of the Conservatives.

Others who have profited are the many, many low-paid workers who now have a minimum wage.

1774. It came like yesterday

Comment #45369 by steve99 on May 27, 2007 at 12:26 pm

brian: You are right. There was lots of talk about 'armageddon' and 'destroying the world' during the cold war, but the truth is that our nuclear weapons would have had little long-term impact on life on earth, even if they all had been set off at once. Given a couple of centuries, even the human population would have recovered. The real danger is from nature. The energies involved in comet or asteroid impacts are almost unbelievable. A smallish object of around 1km diameter would release an energy of 300 gigatonnes - 10 times the explosive power of all nuclear weapons that existed at the height of the cold war.

1775. Al Gore on Reason

Comment #45346 by steve99 on May 27, 2007 at 9:14 am

Thatcher may have started the political rot but Blair and Brown have progressed it to absurd ends.

I am not entirely sure what you mean by political rot, but as a gay man who has recently had a civil partnership ceremony, and as someone who has many links with small busineses which have done very well because of a stable economy, I say bring on the rot!

1776. Al Gore on Reason

Comment #45311 by steve99 on May 27, 2007 at 6:37 am

Good work on this thread by the way, what you are saying simply cannot be said often enough:-)

Thanks! I am fortunate in that this is a subject I have a lot of experience in.

1777. Al Gore on Reason

Comment #45308 by steve99 on May 27, 2007 at 6:28 am

I wasn't going to get furthered involved, but you are being outright dishonest here. Climate modeling is a VERY new science.

That is not the point. What I was describing were the statistical ensemble techniques, and those techniques were what was being called 'bollox'. No dishonesty.

Also, climate modelling is certainly not a very new science. Some of the first models were set up in the 1950s.

One of the key developments in Chaos Theory was the discovery of the Lorenz attractor by Edward Lorenz when he was studing models of atmospheric convection in 1963.

We hear more about climate modelling now because the exponential increase in computing power means that modelling can now be done with sufficient accuracy to be used for prediction.

Just to give an idea of how this power has increased: in the mid 80s I worked on statistical ensemble models of molecules. At that time models were limited to handling only a few hundred molecules. I helped put forward a grant proposal for a model that included thousands and it was refused because it was thought to be impractical. Now the models can handle millions.

The IPCC even states it not to be fully reliable as it is unable to take into account even the majority of the thousands of variables which drive climate. The IPCC admits that it hasn't even been able to accurately replicate past climates by entering known data.

We are not talking about full reliability or accuracy. If we were, we would not need to set up statistical ensembles. This is why the predictions of climate change have a lot of variation. However we can use statistics to analyse this variation.

These answers are not found, and progress is not made, by gross distortions coming from either side which is exactly what is happening.

Nothing I have said has been any kind of distortion. I have explained clearly what the modelling techniques are and how they are used. They are very, very well-established techniques.

1778. Al Gore on Reason

Comment #45299 by steve99 on May 27, 2007 at 5:59 am

brian: you are right. But there is a more insidious approach that AGW deniers use. It is insidious because many AGW deniers don't even realise this approach is wrong. What they do is to pick an expert whose views they approve of.

But, of course, this is just as flawed as denying the science directly, as you are is in no position to pick which expert is right unless you are yourself an expert in that area of science.

The only honest approach for the layman is to go with the scientific consensus.

1779. Al Gore on Reason

Comment #45291 by steve99 on May 27, 2007 at 5:29 am

By the way, your explanation still sounds like bollox to me.

Exactly the same modelling techniques have used throughout science for a very long time. It is a vital tool in countless areas of research. I mentioned flying earlier. Well, statistical ensemble techniques are used in plane design, to model turbulence.

So it certainly is not 'bollox'.

It would not be the first time that science has given us a bum steer. That is why I am so skeptical about this new science.

This is not a new science! This approach to modelling was introduced by Gibbs in 1878.

To be consistent you would have to have equal skepticism about vast areas of chemistry and physics.

Also, to justifiably be skeptical you have to have an understanding of what you are being skeptical of. Unless you have experience of statistical ensemble modelling, you are in no position to judge. It makes just as much sense as a layman being skeptical about general relativity.

1780. Al Gore on Reason

Comment #45280 by steve99 on May 27, 2007 at 4:30 am

However, your explanation (and this might just be down to you) does not make me feel any better as it just sounds like you are playing with data until you get the answers you want. This may not be the case, but it is how it seems from what you said.

I find it really strange that you can say this. Do you honestly believe that this is all scientists are doing?

Of course you aren't playing until you get the answers you want! Having helped develop such models in one area of research (chemical thermodynamics) I can tell you that the models are designed with great care and precision so as to give results that are meaningful, not artificial. They are run against control and test data to ensure that they have the required degree of accuracy before they are used for prediction.

Also, it would be very, very hard to 'get the answers you want'. Almost all such models include a degree of chaos. The models are run many, many times (the 'statistical ensemble') is because it is takes a huge amount of computer time to get any result at all.

If we knew how to get the answers we wanted, we would not need the models!

Now, I think we can continue to waste time and effort researching AGW or we can use that time and the scientific resources to better effect by solving the problems that 'may be' contributing to global warming and spend money building defences against the possible outcomes.

This is not cost-effective. The strategies for cutting CO2 production also happen to be good stragies for making dramatic savings and huge increases in efficiency. They are also what we need to do to reduce our dependency on fuel supplies from unstable countries.

And, a lot of it is easy. Just to give one example - currently cars in Europe have significantly better mpg than cars in the USA. A switch to European engine designs would hardly wreck the economy.

1781. Al Gore on Reason

Comment #45270 by steve99 on May 27, 2007 at 3:30 am

Now I may not be a gee whizz scientist like Steve professes to be, but I have been working in IT for the last 15 years and I do understand the falibility of computer models (gigo).

Oh come off it. That is a terrible justification for your point of view. Simulation modelling is a deep subject in itself - it is more mathematics than computing - and just because it uses computers does not mean that someone who works in IT has any understanding of the subject. I suppose because CERN uses computers that makes you knowledgeable about particle physics does it?

You went off on a rant telling me to go to school for 72 years to study, just like you did I assume. So what you are saying, pretty much, is: 'How dare you question me on this. I am far superior to you and don't have to justify myself in any way to you.'

No, that is not what I said at all. I can explain, but the problem is that it is pretty technical. What I was questioning was your bizarre refusal to accept the word of scientists when it comes to global warming when you accept their words in other areas.

A summary of how the models work is this:

You set up a model system of high spatial resolution within which you include as much phyical state as possible. You then run mathematical models that change the state of all points within the space you are modelling. You keep on doing this for a while until the model settles, and then you run for a further time during which you sample properties of the model to provide your prediction.

However, because weather is unstable, this is insufficient, so what you do is set up an 'ensemble' of models. You run each model with a very slightly different set of initial parameters and see what comes out. This way you can determine high-probability outcomes (say, a 3-4C temperature rise over the next century) and low-probability outcomes (a 6-8C rise or a 1-2C rise). You need to run the model enough times to get sensible statistical bounds on the figures.

That is *what* you do, but *how* this is done is extremely complex.

What I don't understand is why you want to know this? Do you expect that you can find a technical fault in current climate change modelling techniques that thousands of scientists haven't, so you can prove them wrong?

1782. Al Gore on Reason

Comment #45259 by steve99 on May 27, 2007 at 2:43 am

As far as I am concerned such a person does not embody the side of reason. In the defense of reason, I would prefer Dennett, Pinkter or Dawkins any day over a Gore.

OK. Time to shut you up.

Richard Dawkins on Al Gore (From Independent Online):

I recommend Al Gore's film on global warming. See it and weep. Not just for the human species. Weep for what we could have had in 2000, but for the vote-rigging in Jeb Bush's Florida.

Dawkins supports Gore. I humbly suggest to you that Dawkins would not support someone who was a creationist or believed in ID.

1783. Al Gore on Reason

Comment #45255 by steve99 on May 27, 2007 at 2:03 am

Steve99, I know you have come here to defend your hero Al Gore (no posts have been made by you about other issue aside Gore),

I think this sums up the poor quality of your research. I have been posting here for a while now, on a range of issues.

1784. Al Gore on Reason

Comment #45174 by steve99 on May 26, 2007 at 5:08 pm

Best of luck to all of you arguing your under-informed beliefs. (For the record, that's directed to both sides.)

Mea cupla.

I apoligise to all. I should have recognised a troll.

1785. Al Gore on Reason

Comment #45167 by steve99 on May 26, 2007 at 4:48 pm

Steve00 has nailed his colours to the mast, now I would like him to explain how his beloved computer models can be used to prove anthropogenic global warming!

I just love a challenge! here goes.

(1) Get a grant to go to college to study a subject in which statistical ensemble models are included. I would suggest either climate change, biochemical or chemical molecular modelling (I would suggest Markov Chain rather than dynamical modelling, as that will be closer to the way that climate change people do things). You will need to learn graduate level mathematics as well.

This stage should take you at least 3 years.

(2) Through such a position, get an account to access the major repositories of published papers, and learn how to search such repositories and summarise the results. (This isn't that hard - in fact, as part of a course for undergraduates, I used to teach how to do this).

Then you can have before you all the knowledge and experience to understand the issues involved.

See you in, say, 4 years?

What I find rather strange about people like you is how you are so selective.

You get in a plane, but you don't ask for evidence about "anthropogenic flight" before you do. You trust the engineers and the comments of others. You don't ask for all the fluid dynamic simulations regarding the plane.

You have a medical problem. You don't ask for evidence of mankinds effects on illness. You don't ask the doctor for all the research in detail. You trust your doctor and consultants.

But for some reason, you feel that you are qualified to comment on global warming, with all the complex associated issues and you expect explanations of all that, including the complex models, in a few sentences.

Why?

1786. Al Gore on Reason

Comment #45147 by steve99 on May 26, 2007 at 3:06 pm

Harvey:

With all due respect, when Gore uses Adam and Eve as a point of reference, he makes his position pretty clear. If it is a matter of him pandering to the masses with an "end justifies the means" approach, in my opinion, he is worse than an outright creationist. That is the kind of unethical tactic typically reserved for ideologues like Sean Hannity and Michael Moore.

And I was so nice to you in my previous comment. In my opinion you are being pretty silly here. Phrases like 'worse than an outrageous creationists' are outrageous and extremely naive.

Is an atheist who sends Christmas cards to Christians friends a deep and unforgivable betrayer of rationality? By making Christmas a point of reference, do they make their position pretty clear? If that Christmas card contains a picture of Santa Clause, does that indicate that such an atheist in realist a 'Clausist' who had a deep belief in the caves full of elves somewhere near the North Pole.

Is an ex-Vice Presendent who includes a picture of Adam and Eve to symbolise the origin of mankind in front of a mainly Christian audience a rabid Creationist?

I have to say this is an interesting experience. I am a great admirer of PZ Myers, and, being not that many years short of his age, but with a much wider (but nowhere near as deep) experience of science rhan he has, I am tempted to set up my own public blog. Some of the crazy and seriously misinformed ideas I have seen posted here have provided me with a lot of inspiration.

1787. Al Gore on Reason

Comment #45141 by steve99 on May 26, 2007 at 2:19 pm

Robert and Harvey:

This is an amazing site. Being a middle aged old fogey, I have been posting on the internet since such a thing was possible. I usually post because having a debate is a way to express and challenge my own views. Having people actually respond to my posts in such a positive way is very rare, and I thank you!

On the other hand, there is Combine_Dave (at least so far):

I must say I am surprised to see proponent of ID/creationism so heavily defended on this forum.

Gore is neither a creationist (as most use the word) or an IDer. He has shown not the slightest evidence that he does not believe that all life on earth is entirely the result of evolution without God's intervention.

What I suspect he believes is that evolution is the process that God set in motion (somewhat indirectly, via the Big Bang) to result in life on Earth.

This is a mistaken view. Anyone with a deep knowledge of biology and physics knows that the randomness of mutation really means truly random, and there is no space for a designer to interfere.

Nevertheless, many religious people believe that. But to claim that this makes them Creationists or IDers is just plain wrong, as they have no objection to full Darwinian evolution being taught in schools.

Dave: I believe your approach is poisonous to the promotion of rationality. Your stance is extremely common - it is the 'anyone who is not totally with us is against us' attitude.

1788. Al Gore on Reason

Comment #45115 by steve99 on May 26, 2007 at 12:18 pm

Harvey: I accept that may not have been your intention. Unfortunately, your statements about our supposed lack of knowledge of anthropogenic global warming led me to believe otherwise. I would certainly agree that he is deluded in his religious beliefs. But that does not make him a creationist. I feel I have clearly explained in this thread why, to put it bluntly, we occasionally need the support of the 'slightly' deluded in order to attack the policies of the seriously deluded. This was in no way the kind of 'religious' or unconditional defense of Gore you implied, and I have not seen this kind of defense from others either.

And, if you think Gore is alarmist, you should hear the views of some others, like James Lovelock. Gore seems mild and comforting by comparison!

1789. Al Gore on Reason

Comment #45104 by steve99 on May 26, 2007 at 11:51 am

Harvey:

What you don't seem to understand is that the 'we don't yet fully understand the science' approach to global warming is exactly the same anti-science 'confuse the issue' strategy as the 'teach the controversy' approach is to Intelligent Design. A dangerous distraction from the real science that fools so many.

I don't defend Gore's support of Creationism in schools years ago. I don't defend his religious beliefs. But, to try and express things in a way Richard Dawkins would approve of... religious people are deluded, but not all of them are equally deluded, or deluded about everything.

In terms of global warming, Gore is not deluded.

1790. Al Gore on Reason

Comment #45097 by steve99 on May 26, 2007 at 11:20 am

I think you will find that Al Gore makes money out of Carbon Transfers

Wow! He is going to get to billionare status quick doing that, isn't he?

He also invented the Internet, remember!

Oh please. That was a tedious misquote. Anyone with any sense knows that quote is nonsense.

I actually don't care that much about the bad science, what I really object to is the fact that schools in the UK are showing this nonsense to young kids, promoted by our idiot government. More brainwashing.

I live in the UK. Being gay, I have no children of my own, but I am passionate about the future of my neices and nephews. What Gore is doing is vitally important. He is promoting a message that has been ignored for far too long. Having years of postdoctoral work (and published papers) in statistical ensemble techniques (the kind of work done by climate modellers) I know the foundation of the work that Gore presents is sound, and is anything but bad science.

If you want to see who has been brainwashed, look in a mirror.

1791. Al Gore on Reason

Comment #45091 by steve99 on May 26, 2007 at 10:49 am

I hate to be rude about a former vice president of the USA

So why bother?

but here goes.

Oh alright then.

Al Gore is an opportunistic twat with all the moral scruples of an Enron CEO and doesn't even have the courage of his convictions.

Don't hold back. Tell us what you really think.

He is also guilty of promulgating bad science in the search for a quick buck.

So if he was to say that he is an evolutionist. I would treat that with the credibility it deserves.

What a strange claim. Making a film that argues against the oil companies and donating much of the profits to charity hardly seems a good definition of a 'search for a quick buck'.

And as for his science - well, Michael Shermer of the Skeptic magazine considers Al Gore's arguments valid. I think he probably has a good filter for bad science.

1792. Al Gore on Reason

Comment #45081 by steve99 on May 26, 2007 at 9:47 am

Robert: I see a real problem in using the nuanced definition of creationism you mention. There are important battles being fought in some countries about education. The battle is between those who want to want to teach creationism in science classes and those who want to prevent that. The majority of those who believe in 'special creation' almost certainly don't want science and religion mixed at schools. They are on 'our' side. If we start to label even these moderates as 'Creationists' we will alienate them, and the battle will be much, much harder to win.

1793. Al Gore on Reason

Comment #45063 by steve99 on May 26, 2007 at 4:41 am

Robert: well put.

However, Al Gore is not a Creationist. He simply isn't. What seems to have happened is that the term 'Creationist' seems to have become distorted to include those who have a fuzzy belief that 'evolution is God's work'. I suspect Gore believes that, and this is entirely consistent with everything he has said.

But that is NOT creationism. Creationism is the belief that evolution alone is not sufficient for the production of the complexity of life and that God directly intervened. I see no evidence that Gore believes this.

1794. Al Gore on Reason

Comment #45048 by steve99 on May 26, 2007 at 3:08 am

I am somewhat disappointed with the extreme nature of some of the views here. There does not seem to be much thinking going on in some cases. Gore is a politician for goodness sake. He uses his considerable experience of politics to promote very important views. That experience of politics is sure to have taught him not to call a major section of his audience (the vast majority in some states) uneducated fools, even if they are, and that to pander to some of their strange beliefs - to sugar-coat his message - it vital to get that very urgent message across. Putting up an Adam&Eve picture as a metaphor at a point in his talk in some parts of the USA is part of that (realising that some of his audience will take it as a metaphor, and others will take it as a friendly nod to their beliefs) is a clever strategy.

Gore's mission has an urgency. Climate change is not just a matter of philosophical debate that may never be won, like atheism vs religion, but an argument that has to be won on a timescale of years, not decades. There isn't time for a new generation of Americans to get educated about science before a dramatic change in policy is required.

One could definitely argue that his past support for teaching of Creationism in schools was hugely mistaken, but he was also state that Evolution was also taught at the same time. Yes, this was an unpleasant compromise, but for goodness sake - he was a politician trying to get elected as President in a country where a significant fraction of the population are bilical literalists. And he very, very nearly did get elected. Those who didn't pander to the religious got nowhere.

So please let's deal with the real world - where we realise what slick politicians have to do to get elected and to promote their messages. Gore is doing good and important work. We need him to do this work.

1795. Al Gore on Reason

Comment #44967 by steve99 on May 25, 2007 at 5:28 pm

doesn't that just support Mind_Rebel's statement? i.e that evolution-theism is unscientific

It does. But that was not the statement I was arguing about, which was:

it's impossible to believe in god and evolution

This is obviously incorrect, because many people do believe both in God and evolution. Sure, I agree this is believing something that is false, but that does not mean people can't believe it!

Why did I argue this point? Because REBEL was setting up a false dichotomy: Either Gore is an atheist and believes in Evolution, or he is a Creationist or Lamarkist.

1796. Al Gore on Reason

Comment #44933 by steve99 on May 25, 2007 at 3:42 pm

mind_rebel: That is a pretty silly statement. Dawkins makes mention of Pope John Paul II's acceptance of evolution as evidence that believers in God can also believe in evolution.

Sure, anyone with a deep understanding of evolution knows that it is pretty much incompatible with the idea of a God having done things, but you have to take into account that Gore (and John Paul II) almost certainly don't have thet deep understanding.

Gore is a believer, but he is not a creationist.

1797. Hitchens on Falwell, Part 2

Comment #43860 by steve99 on May 23, 2007 at 1:49 am

Ok, i understand you now but come on, the UK general media is transparent (relatively) enough to not be able to fabricate something like that and get away with it without rebuttal somewhere (maybe there is one).

The thing is, that no-one takes the Daily Mail that seriously, so they would not bother with a rebuttal.

1798. Mysteries to Behold in the Dark Down Deep: Seadevils and Species Unknown

Comment #43810 by steve99 on May 22, 2007 at 6:24 pm

LeeLeeOne think about the extraordinary pressure those fragile little bodies have to withstand. It's mind boggling, isn't it?

That is an extremely common misunderstanding. They don't have to withstand any pressure! Water flows freely through their bodies, so they experience no forces as a result of living at great depths.

What they do have to deal with is the fact that water provides a different chemical environment at such pressures, so their enzymes are different from those in organisms closer to the surface.

1799. Hitchens on Falwell, Part 2

Comment #43808 by steve99 on May 22, 2007 at 6:14 pm

Now maybe you are saying that as it was the mail reporting a bias admitted from within the BBC itself then maybe its all a fabrication?

Yes.

1800. Hitchens on Falwell, Part 2

Comment #43782 by steve99 on May 22, 2007 at 3:26 pm

steve99, youll notice my post containing the daily mail link does not endorse it in anyway and as far as i can tell the criticism was from within the BBC itself.

You still don't get it. This is criticism reported by the Daily Mail as being from within the BBC.